Low rectal resection for low rectal endometriosis and rectal adenocarcinoma: Are we discussing the same risks?

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the rate and risk factors for anastomosis leakage in patients undergoing colorectal resection with low anastomosis for rectal endometriosis and rectal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study evaluating prospectively collected data was conducted. Patients undergoing colorectal resection for rectal endometriosis and rectal adenocarcinoma with low anastomosis (<7 cm from the anal verge [AV]) from September 2018 to January 2023 were included in the analysis. The main outcome was the rate of anastomosis leakage. A multivariate logistic regression was conducted to evaluate risk factors for anastomosis leakage in both groups. RESULTS: A total of 159 patients underwent colorectal resection with low anastomosis due to rectal endometriosis (n = 99) and rectal adenocarcinoma (n = 60). Patients with endometriosis were significantly younger than those with adenocarcinoma (35.7 ± 5.1 vs 63.7 ± 12.6; P = 0.001). The leakage rate was similar between the endometriosis (n = 12, 12.1%) and adenocarcinoma (n = 9, 15.0%) patients (P = 0.621). The anastomosis height less than 5 cm from the AV (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 12.12, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.24-23.54) was significantly associated with the anastomosis leakage. Protective stoma was associated with the decrease of the leakage risk (aOR 0.12, 95% CI 0.01-0.72). The type of disease (rectal endometriosis or adenocarcinoma) was not associated with the anastomosis leakage (aOR 2.87, 95% CI 0.34-21.23). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the different pathogenesis, the risk of anastomotic leakage was found to be similar between patients with low rectal endometriosis and those with rectal adenocarcinoma. These results must be considered by the gynecologist and colorectal surgeon to deliver proper information before rectal surgery for endometriosis.

Novel stent-assisted ileal bypass is applied to avoid protective stoma and prevent anastomotic leakage for rectal cancer.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to investigate the safety and feasibility of a novel stent-assisted ileal bypass for rectal cancer patients who received sphincter-preserving surgery. METHODS: Patients who were diagnosed with rectal cancer and received sphincter-preserving surgery plus a novel stent-assisted ileal bypass were respectively included from January 2022 to January 2023. Biofragmentable ileal stent with diaphragm sheet in the cavity was placed in the terminal ileum using absorbable sutures after anastomosis. At the proximal end of the stent, an intestinal diversion tube was placed in the prefabricated purse-string, through which faeces were drained. The stent completely disintegrated in the body after 3-4 weeks, which protected the anastomosis after surgery and avoided protective stoma. Clinical characteristics and surgical outcomes were collected. RESULTS: Eleven patients who successfully received surgery were included. There were seven (63.6%) males and four (36.4%) females. The tumour size was 3.2 ± 1.7 cm and the lower verge of tumour to anal verge was 6.8 ± 1.3 cm. As for surgical outcomes, operation time was 216.4 ± 54.1 min, blood loss was 43.6 ± 64.6 mL, time to first flatus via intestinal diversion tube was 3.2 ± 1.1 days, time to discharge stent was 22.8 ± 3.0 days, and postoperative hospital stay was 21.0 ± 5.4 days. Two patients suffered from postoperative complications including pneumonia and incision infection. CONCLUSION: This novel stent-assisted ileal bypass is safe and feasible, it provides a new choice for rectal cancer patients to avoid protective stoma and secondary surgery.

Role and Morbidity of Protective Ileostomy after Anterior Resection for Rectal Cancer: One Centre Experience and Review of Literature.

The creation of a protective stoma is considered a valid life-saving tool, significantly reducing the effects of anastomotic leakage in terms of related morbidity, mortality, and reoperation rate. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of a protective loop ileostomy in terms of short- and long-term postoperative morbidity, quantifying the stoma-related complications arising after stoma creation and stoma closure and the risk of permanent stoma. From January 2009 to January 2020, 149 patients with rectal cancer treated by anterior resection and protective ileostomy were enrolled in the study. A total of 113 (75.84%) patients were preoperatively treated with neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy. A clinically relevant anastomotic leak occurred in two patients (1.34%). The postoperative stoma complication rate was 6%. According to the Clavien classification, the stoma-related complication grade was I in seven patients (4.7%) and II in two patients (1.3%). A late stoma-related parastomal hernia occurred in one patient (0.67%). In 129 patients (86.57%), it was possible to close the stoma. Postoperative complications of stoma closure occurred in 12 patients (9.3%). The stoma closure complication grade was I in seven cases (5.43%), II in two cases (1.55%), and ≥3 in three cases (2.33%). Incisional hernia was the only late complication recorded in seven cases (5.42%). The permanent stoma rate was 13.43%. A protective ileostomy has a nonnegligible complication rate, but the rate of severe complications is low. Every effort should be made to clearly identify patients in whom the risk of anastomotic leakage justifies the stoma.

Application and evaluation of transitory protective stoma in ovarian cancer surgery.

Ovarian cancer is the most fatal of all female reproductive cancers. The fatality rate of OC is the highest among gynecological malignant tumors, and cytoreductive surgery is a common surgical procedure for patients with advanced ovarian cancer. To achieve satisfactory tumor reduction, intraoperative bowel surgery is often involved. Intestinal anastomosis is the traditional way to restore intestinal continuity, but the higher rate of postoperative complications still cannot be ignored. Transitory protective stoma can reduce the severity of postoperative complications and traumatic stress reaction and provide the opportunity for conservative treatment. But there are also many problems, such as stoma-related complications and the impact on social psychology. Therefore, it is essential to select appropriate patients according to the indications for the transitory protective stoma, and a customized postoperative care plan is needed specifically for the stoma population.

[Quality of life of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy and sphincter-preserving surgery].

Objective: To investigate quality of life (QoL) of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) who underwent low anterior resection with protective stoma under neoadjuvant therapy mode, and to explore the changes of QoL of patients from before neoadjuvant therapy to 12 months after stoma reversal. Methods: A descriptive case series study was carried out. A retrospective study was performed on patients with mid and low LARC who received complete neoadjuvant long course radiotherapy and chemotherapy, followed by radical low anterior resection (LAR) combined with protective stoma at Peking Union Medical College Hospital from December 2017 to January 2020. Inclusion criteria: (1) patients with rectal MRI assessment of mT3-4b or mN1-2 without distant metastasis (M0) before neoadjuvant therapy; (2) distance from tumor lower margin to the anal verge <12 cm; (3) rectal adenocarcinoma confirmed by biopsy before neoadjuvant therapy; (4) complete cycle of neoadjuvant therapy; (5) patients undergoing radical LAR with sphincter preservation and protective ostomy; (6) patients receiving follow-up for more than 12 months after stoma reversal. Exclusion criteria: (1) patients as grade Ⅳ to Ⅴclassified by the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA); (2) patients with multiple primary colorectal cancer; (3) patients with history of other malignant tumors in the past 5 years; (4) patients of emergency surgery; (5) pregnant or lactating women; (6) patients with history of severe mental illness; (7) patients with contraindication of MRI, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, or surgical treatment. A total of 83 patients were enrolled, including 51 males and 28 females with median age of 59 years and mean BMI of (24.4±3.1) kg/m(2). EORTC QLQ-CR29, international erectile function index (IIEF), Wexner constipation score and low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) score were applied to investigate the QoL of the patients before neoadjuvant therapy, 3 and 12 months after ostomy reversal, including rectal anal function and sexual function. M (P25, P75) was used for the scores of the scale. Results: (1) EORTC QLQ-CR29 score showed that before neoadjuvant therapy, before surgery, 3 months and 12 months after ostomy reversal, anxiety [64.4 (52, 0, 82.5), 75.3 (66.0, 89.5), 82.6 (78.5, 90.0), 83.6 (78.0, 91.0)] and concern about body image [76.8 (66.0, 92.0), 81.1 (76.5, 91.5), 85.5 (82.5, 94.0), 86.1 (82.0, 92.0)] were improved (all P<0.01); pelvic pain [5.4 (2.0, 8.0), 5, 0 (2.0, 7.8), 3.9 (1.0, 5.0), 3.0 (1.0, 5.0)], urinary incontinence [15.7 (7.0, 22.0), 11.1 (0, 17.5), 10.0 (0, 17.0), 9.9 (0, 16.0)], impotence [14.3 (4.2, 19.0), 12.2 (0, 16.8), 5.6 (0, 10.0), 5.2 (0.2, 8.0)], urinate [26.4 (13.0, 38.5), 13.9 (0, 20.0), 13.4 (2.5, 21.5), 13.2 (2.0, 20.0)] and mucous bloody stool [4.7 (3.0, 6.0), 2.6 (0, 5.0), 2.2 (0, 5.0), 1.9 (0, 4.0)] were improved as well (all P<0.01). The scores fluctuated in the improvement of male sexual function, abdominal pain, dry mouth, worry about body mass change, skin pain and dyspareunia, but the symptoms were significantly improved after ostomy reversal compared with before neoadjuvant therapy (all P<0.05). There were no significant changes in female sexual function, dysuria, dysgeusia and fecal incontinence after ostomy reversal compared with before neoadjuvant therapy (all P>0.05). (2) IIEF scale showed that all scores were similar before and after neoadjuvant therapy (all P>0.05). (3) Rectal and anal function scale revealed that before neoadjuvant therapy, before operation, 3 months and 12 months after stoma reversal, gas incontinence [3.1 (0, 4.0), 2.3 (0, 4.0), 1.8 (0, 4.0), 1.2 (0, 3.0)] and urgent defecation [7.2 (0, 11.0), 5.2 (0, 11.0), 2.9 (0, 9.0), 1.7 (0, 0)] were improved (all P<0.001). In terms of improving incomplete emptying sensation, the symptoms fluctuated, but the symptoms improved significantly after ostomy reversal compared with before neoadjuvant therapy (all P<0.05). While the symptoms of assistance with defecation [0 (0, 0), 0.7 (0, 1.0), 0.6 (0, 1.0), 0.7 (0, 1.0)] and defecation failure [0.2 (0, 0), 1.0 (0, 2.0), 0.8 (0, 1.5), 0.8 (0, 1.0)] showed a worsening trend (all P<0.001). Stratified analysis was performed on patients with different efficacy of neoadjuvant therapy to compare the changes in QoL before and after neoadjuvant therapy. Patients with less sensitive and more sensitive neoadjuvant therapy showed similar changes in function and symptoms. Patients with less sensitive therapy showed significant improvement in dysuria, urinary incontinence, skin pain and dyspareunia (all P<0.05), and the symptom of defecation frequency in more sensitive patients was significantly improved (P<0.05). Conclusions: For patients with LARC, neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy combined with radical LAR and protective stoma can improve QoL in many aspects. It is noted that patients show a worsening trend in the need for assistance with defecation and in defecation failure.

Combined stoma reversal and liver resection for rectal metastatic cancer: A single center retrospective analysis.

GOAL OF THE STUDY: Concomitant liver metastases are discovered at the time of diagnosis in 25% of patients with colorectal cancers. The appropriate time to restore digestive continuity after stoma creation during rectal surgery has not yet been established. The objective of this study is to assess the morbidity of stoma reversal during the secondary hepatectomy procedure. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a single-center retrospective case-control study including patients who underwent ileostomy or colostomy reversal by a direct approach (REVERSAL group) compared to those who did not undergo stoma reversal (NON-REVERSAL group) during hepatic resection of rectal cancer metastasis between 2004 and 2016. Peri-operative data were collected. The primary outcome measure was the comprehensive complication index (CCI). The secondary outcomes were overall mortality, liver-related morbidity, duration of hospital stay and occurrence of gastrointestinal leaks. Statistical analysis was carried out using SPSS 23.0 software. RESULTS: Thirty liver resections were included; 14 in the REVERSAL group (female/male=11/19, age=60 years). No statistically significant difference was observed in the CCI scores (15 vs. 20.8; P=0.6). Complications occurred in 9 (64%) and 8 (50%) patients in the REVERSAL and NON-REVERSAL groups, respectively (P=0.48). No gastro-intestinal leaks or post-operative mortality occurred. CONCLUSION: Stoma reversal during hepatectomy for liver metastasis from a primary rectal cancer represents a safe alternative since post-operative outcome was not associated with additional morbidity in this series.

Quality of life of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy and sphincter-preserving surgery / 中华胃肠外科杂志

Objective: To investigate quality of life (QoL) of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) who underwent low anterior resection with protective stoma under neoadjuvant therapy mode, and to explore the changes of QoL of patients from before neoadjuvant therapy to 12 months after stoma reversal. Methods: A descriptive case series study was carried out. A retrospective study was performed on patients with mid and low LARC who received complete neoadjuvant long course radiotherapy and chemotherapy, followed by radical low anterior resection (LAR) combined with protective stoma at Peking Union Medical College Hospital from December 2017 to January 2020. Inclusion criteria: (1) patients with rectal MRI assessment of mT3-4b or mN1-2 without distant metastasis (M0) before neoadjuvant therapy; (2) distance from tumor lower margin to the anal verge <12 cm; (3) rectal adenocarcinoma confirmed by biopsy before neoadjuvant therapy; (4) complete cycle of neoadjuvant therapy; (5) patients undergoing radical LAR with sphincter preservation and protective ostomy; (6) patients receiving follow-up for more than 12 months after stoma reversal. Exclusion criteria: (1) patients as grade Ⅳ to Ⅴclassified by the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA); (2) patients with multiple primary colorectal cancer; (3) patients with history of other malignant tumors in the past 5 years; (4) patients of emergency surgery; (5) pregnant or lactating women; (6) patients with history of severe mental illness; (7) patients with contraindication of MRI, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, or surgical treatment. A total of 83 patients were enrolled, including 51 males and 28 females with median age of 59 years and mean BMI of (24.4±3.1) kg/m(2). EORTC QLQ-CR29, international erectile function index (IIEF), Wexner constipation score and low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) score were applied to investigate the QoL of the patients before neoadjuvant therapy, 3 and 12 months after ostomy reversal, including rectal anal function and sexual function. M (P25, P75) was used for the scores of the scale. Results: (1) EORTC QLQ-CR29 score showed that before neoadjuvant therapy, before surgery, 3 months and 12 months after ostomy reversal, anxiety [64.4 (52, 0, 82.5), 75.3 (66.0, 89.5), 82.6 (78.5, 90.0), 83.6 (78.0, 91.0)] and concern about body image [76.8 (66.0, 92.0), 81.1 (76.5, 91.5), 85.5 (82.5, 94.0), 86.1 (82.0, 92.0)] were improved (all P<0.01); pelvic pain [5.4 (2.0, 8.0), 5, 0 (2.0, 7.8), 3.9 (1.0, 5.0), 3.0 (1.0, 5.0)], urinary incontinence [15.7 (7.0, 22.0), 11.1 (0, 17.5), 10.0 (0, 17.0), 9.9 (0, 16.0)], impotence [14.3 (4.2, 19.0), 12.2 (0, 16.8), 5.6 (0, 10.0), 5.2 (0.2, 8.0)], urinate [26.4 (13.0, 38.5), 13.9 (0, 20.0), 13.4 (2.5, 21.5), 13.2 (2.0, 20.0)] and mucous bloody stool [4.7 (3.0, 6.0), 2.6 (0, 5.0), 2.2 (0, 5.0), 1.9 (0, 4.0)] were improved as well (all P<0.01). The scores fluctuated in the improvement of male sexual function, abdominal pain, dry mouth, worry about body mass change, skin pain and dyspareunia, but the symptoms were significantly improved after ostomy reversal compared with before neoadjuvant therapy (all P<0.05). There were no significant changes in female sexual function, dysuria, dysgeusia and fecal incontinence after ostomy reversal compared with before neoadjuvant therapy (all P>0.05). (2) IIEF scale showed that all scores were similar before and after neoadjuvant therapy (all P>0.05). (3) Rectal and anal function scale revealed that before neoadjuvant therapy, before operation, 3 months and 12 months after stoma reversal, gas incontinence [3.1 (0, 4.0), 2.3 (0, 4.0), 1.8 (0, 4.0), 1.2 (0, 3.0)] and urgent defecation [7.2 (0, 11.0), 5.2 (0, 11.0), 2.9 (0, 9.0), 1.7 (0, 0)] were improved (all P<0.001). In terms of improving incomplete emptying sensation, the symptoms fluctuated, but the symptoms improved significantly after ostomy reversal compared with before neoadjuvant therapy (all P<0.05). While the symptoms of assistance with defecation [0 (0, 0), 0.7 (0, 1.0), 0.6 (0, 1.0), 0.7 (0, 1.0)] and defecation failure [0.2 (0, 0), 1.0 (0, 2.0), 0.8 (0, 1.5), 0.8 (0, 1.0)] showed a worsening trend (all P<0.001). Stratified analysis was performed on patients with different efficacy of neoadjuvant therapy to compare the changes in QoL before and after neoadjuvant therapy. Patients with less sensitive and more sensitive neoadjuvant therapy showed similar changes in function and symptoms. Patients with less sensitive therapy showed significant improvement in dysuria, urinary incontinence, skin pain and dyspareunia (all P<0.05), and the symptom of defecation frequency in more sensitive patients was significantly improved (P<0.05). Conclusions: For patients with LARC, neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy combined with radical LAR and protective stoma can improve QoL in many aspects. It is noted that patients show a worsening trend in the need for assistance with defecation and in defecation failure.

Anastomotic leaks in gastrointestinal surgery and their prevention.

Anastomotic leak in the gastrointestinal tract is one of the most important complications of resection. They are the main cause of reoperation, their occurrence worsens the prognosis of the patient, increasing the proportion of direct mortality, as well as being a significant risk factor for recurrence of cancer. The risk of leaks within the gastrointestinal tract is greatly varied, depending on the location and extent of the resection, but also on patient, disease or a surgical procedure, including surgeon. To determine the potential risk of leakage can be significant for introduction some prophylactic actions. Some of them have the character of general recommendations, as proper nutrition of the patient in the perioperative period, while another part is directly connected to the surgical procedure. The second group includes protective stoma, the use of tissue glues, insertion transrectal drain for rectal anastomosis decompression, the use of stents or the use of collagen matrix coated with fibrinogen and thrombin. Important to reduce the proportion of leaks can be more precise and targeted prophylactic recommendations, based on the individualized determination of risk factors leaks. Further research for this purpose are necessary for this purpose, the big hope can be associated with data obtained through mobile applications.

A prospective algorithm to reduce anastomotic leaks after rectosigmoid resection for gynecologic malignancies.

OBJECTIVE: Determine whether a standardized protocol for temporary bowel diversion after rectosigmoid resection (RSR) for cytoreduction can reduce the rate of anastomotic leak (AL). METHODS: A prospective quality improvement project for patients undergoing RSR during debulking surgery from 07/2013 to 01/2016 was conducted. Patients with any of the following underwent temporary diversion: preoperative albumin ≤3.0g/dL, prior pelvic radiation, RSR plus additional large bowel resection (LBR), anastomosis (AS) ≤6cm from the anal verge, failed leak test or contamination of the pelvis with stool. The AL rate was compared to the historic AL rate from 01/04-06/11. RESULTS: Seventy-seven patients underwent RSR, with 27 (35.1%) receiving diverting stomas vs. 25/309 (8.1%) in the historic cohort. Additional LBR (33.3%) and AS at ≤6cm from anal verge (26.3%) were the most common indications for diversion. No AL was observed among diverted patients. If one AL which occurred following protocol violation (failed leak test but not diverted) is excluded, the theoretical AL rate is 1.3% (1/77) vs. 7.8% (24/309; P=0.039) in the historic cohort. Not excluding this case, the AL rate was 2.6% (2/77) vs. 7.8% (P=0.11). Short-term outcomes following primary surgery were not different between diverted and non-diverted patients. Stoma-related complications were observed in 7/27 (25.9%) patients, primarily related to dehydration. Reversal surgery was successfully performed in 24/75 (88.9%) patients. CONCLUSIONS: Criteria-based temporary bowel diversion for patients undergoing RSR for gynecologic cancer reduced the AL rate. Diversion was associated with acceptable morbidity and high reversal rate.

Role of protective stoma in low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis.

AIM: To provide a comprehensive evaluation of the role of a protective stoma in low anterior resection (LAR) for rectal cancer. METHODS: The PubMed, EMBASE, and MEDLINE databases were searched for studies and relevant literature published between 2007 and 2014 regarding the construction of a protective stoma during LAR. A pooled risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was used to assess the outcomes of the studies, including the rate of postoperative anastomotic leakage and reoperations related to leakage. Funnel plots and Egger's tests were used to evaluate the publication biases of the studies. P values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: A total of 11 studies were included in the meta-analysis. In total, 5612 patients were examined, 2868 of whom had a protective stoma and 2744 of whom did not. The sample size of the studies varied from 34 to 1912 patients. All studies reported the number of patients who developed an anastomotic leakage and required a reoperation related to leakage. A random effects model was used to calculate the pooled RR with the corresponding 95%CI because obvious heterogeneity was observed among the 11 studies (I (2) = 77%). The results indicated that the creation of a protective stoma during LAR significantly reduces the rate of anastomotic leakage and the number of reoperations related to leakage, with pooled RRs of 0.38 (95%CI: 0.30-0.48, P < 0.00001) and 0.37 (95%CI: 0.29-0.48, P < 0.00001), respectively. The shape of the funnel plot did not reveal any evidence of obvious asymmetry. CONCLUSION: The presence of a protective stoma effectively decreased the incidences of anastomotic leakage and reoperation and is recommended in patients undergoing low rectal anterior resections for rectal cancer.

Completely diverted tube ileostomy compared with loop ileostomy for protection of low colorectal anastomosis: a pilot study.

AIM: The study was designed to evaluate a new completely diverted tube ileostomy (CDTI) with a reversible single-row stapled occlusion of the distal limb to defunction a low colorectal anastomosis, and to compare it with a loop ileostomy (LI). METHOD: From September 2010 to August 2012, 95 patients with rectal cancer who underwent elective low anterior resections were recruited into the study. They received either a CDTI or a LI. Demographics, clinical features and operative data were recorded. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients (56%) had a CDTI and 41 (44%) a LI. There were no significant differences in patient demographics and clinical characteristics. Anastomotic dehiscence occurred in three (5.6%) patients in the CDTI group and two (4.9%) in the LI group (not significant) and no patient developed faecal peritonitis. In the CDTI group, the distal ileum spontaneously recanalized from the stapler occlusion with an average anastomosis exclusion time of 27.9 (14-70) days. The CDTI tube was removed on day 33 (20-75) and the subsequent stoma closure time was 12.3 (6-30) days. CONCLUSION: The CDTI procedure is a safe and effective technique for defunctioning an elective low colorectal anastomosis and avoids a formal stoma.