Scarless two-stage delayed coloanal anastomosis: a technique description

Introduction: In current clinical practice, immediate coloanal anastomosis (ICA) remains the standard technique for restoring the gastrointestinal tract following coloproctectomy for low rectal cancer. This anastomosis still requires a temporary diverting stoma to decrease the postoperative morbidity, which remains significantly high. As an alternative, some authors have proposed a two-stage delayed coloanal anastomosis (TS-DCA). This article reports on the surgical technique of TS-DCA. Methods: The case described is of a 53-year-old woman, without any particular history, in whom colonoscopy motivated by rectal bleeding revealed an adenocarcinoma of the low rectum. Magnetic resonance imaging showed a tumor ~ 1 cm above the puborectalis muscle, graded cT3N +. The extension workup was negative. Seven weeks after chemoradiotherapy, a coloproctectomy with total mesorectal excision (TME) was performed. A TS-DCA was chosen to restore the digestive tract. Conclusion: Two-stage delayed coloanal anastomosis is a safe and effective alternative for restoring the digestive tract after proctectomy for low rectal cancer. Recent data seem to show a clear advantage of this technique in terms of morbidity. (AU)

Comparison of postoperative complication rates between a novel endoluminal balloon-assisted drainage and diverting stoma after low rectal cancer.

AIM: To introduce a novel endo-luminal balloon-assisted drainage (EBAD) and compare postoperative complication rates between EBAD and diverting stoma (DS) groups. METHODS: The single center prospective non-random cohort study included a total of 163 patients in convenience patients with rectal cancer between January 2019 and January 2021. Out of 163 patients, 83 underwent DS and 80 EBAD. Primary endpoints were postoperative complication rate. RESULTS: The total number of complications was 28 in the DS group vs. 22 in the EBAD group (P = 0.388). 18 patients (21.7%) in the DS group and 14 patients (17.5%) in the EBAD group developed postoperative complication (P = 0.501). There were no differences identified for anastomotic leak rates between the two groups (P = 0.677). The rate of the pelvic abscess was lower in the EBAD group (1/80, 1.3%) than in the DS group (4/83, 4.8%) but with no statistical significance (P = 0.386). Compared with the DS group, the median operative time was shorter in the EBAD group (225 vs. 173.5 min, P < 0.001). Regarding incomplete small bowel obstruction, a higher prevalence was observed in the DS group compared to the EBAD group (7.2% vs 2.5%, P = 0.301). 7 patients (11.3%) in the DS group developed a para-stomal hernia, while no patient suffered a catheter-related complication. The median postoperative hospital stay was shorter in the DS groups than in the EBAD group (7 vs 8 days, P = 0.009). The median residence time of endo-luminal balloon-assisted drainage was 5.41 days. The median average and total volume of drainage were 51.57 ml/day and 255 ml, respectively. CONCLUSION: EBAD is feasible and safe with similar postoperative complications when compared with a DS. EBAD may replace DS after rectum resection.