Low Hartmann's procedure versus abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer, a propensity score matching cohort study.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare low Hartmann's procedure (LHP) with abdominoperineal resection (APR) for rectal cancer (RC) regarding postoperative complications. METHOD: RC patients receiving radical LHP or APR from 2015 to 2019 in our center were retrospectively enrolled. Patients' demographic and surgical information was collected and analyzed. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance the baseline information. The primary outcome was the incidence of major complications. All the statistical analysis was performed by SPSS 22.0 and R. RESULTS: 342 individuals were primarily included and 134 remained after PSM with a 1:2 ratio (50 in LHP and 84 in APR). Patients in the LHP group were associated with higher tumor height (P < 0.001). No significant difference was observed between the two groups for the incidence of major complications (6.0% vs. 1.2%, P = 0.290), and severe pelvic abscess (2% vs. 0%, P = 0.373). However, the occurrence rate of minor complications was significantly higher in the LHP group (52% vs. 21.4%, P < 0.001), and the difference mainly lay in abdominal wound infection (10% vs. 0%, P = 0.006) and bowel obstruction (16% vs. 4.8%, P = 0.028). LHP was not the independent risk factor of pelvic abscess in the multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: Our data demonstrated a comparable incidence of major complications between LHP and APR. LHP was still a reliable alternative in selected RC patients when primary anastomosis was not recommended.

IRIS U kit usefulness in transanal total mesorectal excision for lower rectal cancer to avoid urethral injury.

Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) has improved the laparoscopic dissection for rectal cancer in the narrow pelvis. Although taTME has more clinical benefits than laparoscopic surgery, such as a better view of the distal rectum and direct determination of distal resection margin, an intraoperative urethral injury could occur in excision ta-TME. This study aimed to determine the feasibility and efficacy of the ta-TME with IRIS U kit surgery. This retrospective study enrolled 10 rectal cancer patients who underwent a taTME with an IRIS U kit. The study endpoints were the safety of access (intra- or postoperative morbidity). The detectability of the IRIS U kit catheter was investigated by using a laparoscope-ICG fluorescence camera system. Their mean age was 71.4±6.4 (58-78) years; 80 were men, and 2 were women. The mean operative time was 534.6 ± 94.5 min. The coloanal anastomosis was performed in 80%, and 20% underwent abdominal peritoneal resection. Two patients encountered postoperative complications graded as Clavien-Dindo grade 2. The transanal approach with IRIS U kit assistance is feasible, safe for patients with lower rectal cancer, and may prevent intraoperative urethral injury.

Turnbull-Cutait pull-through coloanal anastomosis versus standard coloanal anastomosis plus diverting ileostomy for low anterior resection: a meta-analysis and systematic review.

PURPOSE: Coloanal anastomosis with loop diverting ileostomy (CAA) is an option for low anterior resection of the rectum, and Turnbull-Cutait coloanal anastomosis (TCA) regained popularity in the effort to offer patients a reconstructive option. In this context, we aimed to compare both techniques. METHODS: PubMed, Cochrane, and Scopus were searched for studies published until January 2024. Odds ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled with a random-effects model. Statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochran Q test and I2 statistics, with p-values inferior to 0.10 and I2 >25% considered significant. Statistical analysis was conducted in RStudio version 4.1.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing). Registered number CRD42024509963. RESULTS: One randomized controlled trial and nine observational studies were included, comprising 1,743 patients, of whom 899 (51.5%) were submitted to TCA and 844 (48.5%) to CAA. Most patients had rectal cancer (52.2%), followed by megacolon secondary to Chagas disease (32.5%). TCA was associated with increased colon ischemia (OR 3.54; 95% CI 1.13 to 11.14; p < 0.031; I2 = 0%). There were no differences in postoperative complications classified as Clavien-Dindo ≥ IIIb, anastomotic leak, pelvic abscess, intestinal obstruction, bleeding, permanent stoma, or anastomotic stricture. In subgroup analysis of patients with cancer, TCA was associated with a reduction in anastomotic leak (OR 0.55; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.97 p = 0.04; I2 = 34%). CONCLUSION: TCA was associated with a decrease in anastomotic leak rate in subgroups analysis of patients with cancer.

Updated evidence of the effectiveness and safety of transanal drainage tube for the prevention of anastomotic leakage after rectal low anterior resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUNDS: Anastomotic leakage (AL) represents a major complication after rectal low anterior resection (LAR). Transanal drainage tube (TDT) placement offers a potential strategy for AL prevention; however, its efficacy and safety remain contentious. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were used to evaluate the influence of TDT subsequent to LAR as part of the revision of the surgical site infection prevention guidelines of the Japanese Society of Surgical Infectious Diseases (PROSPERO registration; CRD42023476655). We searched each database, and included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (OBSs) comparing TDT and non-TDT outcomes. The main outcome was AL. Data were independently extracted by three authors and random-effects models were implemented. RESULTS: A total of three RCTs and 18 OBSs were included. RCTs reported no significant difference in AL rate between the TDT and non-TDT groups [relative risk (RR): 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42-1.15]. OBSs reported that TDT reduced AL risk [odds ratio (OR): 0.45, 95% CI 0.31-0.64]. In the subgroup excluding diverting stoma (DS), TDT significantly lowered the AL rate in RCTs (RR: 0.57, 95% CI 0.33-0.99) and OBSs (OR: 0.41, 95% CI 0.27-0.62). Reoperation rates were significantly lower in the TDT without DS groups in both RCTs (RR: 0.26, 95% CI 0.07-0.94) and OBSs (OR: 0.40, 95% CI 0.24-0.66). TDT groups exhibited a higher anastomotic bleeding rate only in RCTs (RR: 4.28, 95% CI 2.14-8.54), while shorter hospital stays were observed in RCTs [standard mean difference (SMD): -0.44, 95% CI -0.65 to -0.23] and OBSs (SMD: -0.54, 95% CI -0.97 to -0.11) compared with the non-TDT group. CONCLUSIONS: A universal TDT placement cannot be recommended for all rectal LAR patients. Some patients may benefit from TDT, such as patients without DS creation. Further investigation is necessary to identify the specific beneficiaries.

Long-term Quality of Life After Surgery for Mid- and High Rectal Cancer: Hartmann's Procedure Versus Anterior Resection and Abdominoperineal Resection.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Anterior resection is the gold standard surgery for high and middle rectal tumors. In cases where anterior resection is not feasible, the surgeon resorts to a non-restorative approach such as Hartmann's procedure or abdominoperineal resection. It is not well studied how Hartmann's procedure impacts quality of life. This cross-sectional cohort study compares the long-term quality of life after Hartmann's procedure with anterior resection and abdominoperineal resection. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients operated for high- or middle rectal cancer in the southern healthcare region of Sweden between 2007 and 2017 were identified and data were extracted from the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry. Further clinical variables were retrieved from medical charts. Quality of life was evaluated by SF-12-, EQ-5D-5L- and EORTC QLQ - CR29 questionnaires. RESULTS: Out of 521 patients included, 51 had undergone Hartmann's procedure, 381 anterior resection and 89 abdominoperineal resection. Hartmann patients were significantly older with more comorbidities. Median follow-up time was 104 months. There were no differences between groups in overall quality of life. Patients subjected to Hartmann's procedure reported inferior mobility, self-care, daily activities and reduced estimation of general health compared to those who had anterior resection. Abdominoperineal resection was associated with more impotence compared to Hartmann's procedure. CONCLUSION: Overall long-term QoL after Hartmann's procedure was comparable to anterior resection and abdominoperineal resection. In certain symptoms patients with Hartmann's procedure for rectal cancer scored worse compared to anterior resection, but patients were older and frailer making causal inference impossible.

Robotic, transanal, and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for locally advanced mid/low rectal cancer: European multicentre, propensity score-matched study.

BACKGROUND: Total mesorectal excision (TME) is the standard surgery for low/mid locally advanced rectal cancer. The aim of this study was to compare three minimally invasive surgical approaches for TME with primary anastomosis (laparoscopic TME, robotic TME, and transanal TME). METHODS: Records of patients undergoing laparoscopic TME, robotic TME, or transanal TME between 2013 and 2022 according to standardized techniques in expert centres contributing to the European MRI and Rectal Cancer Surgery III (EuMaRCS-III) database were analysed. Propensity score matching was applied to compare the three groups with respect to the complication rate (primary outcome), conversion rate, postoperative recovery, and survival. RESULTS: A total of 468 patients (mean(s.d.) age of 64.1(11) years) were included; 190 (40.6%) patients underwent laparoscopic TME, 141 (30.1%) patients underwent robotic TME, and 137 (29.3%) patients underwent transanal TME. Comparative analyses after propensity score matching demonstrated a higher rate of postoperative complications for laparoscopic TME compared with both robotic TME (OR 1.80, 95% c.i. 1.11-2.91) and transanal TME (OR 2.87, 95% c.i. 1.72-4.80). Robotic TME was associated with a lower rate of grade A anastomotic leakage (2%) compared with both laparoscopic TME (8.8%) and transanal TME (8.1%) (P = 0.031). Robotic TME (1.4%) and transanal TME (0.7%) were both associated with a lower conversion rate to open surgery compared with laparoscopic TME (8.8%) (P < 0.001). Time to flatus and duration of hospital stay were shorter for patients treated with transanal TME (P = 0.003 and 0.001 respectively). There were no differences in operating time, intraoperative complications, blood loss, mortality, readmission, R0 resection, or survival. CONCLUSION: In this multicentre, retrospective, propensity score-matched, cohort study of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer, newer minimally invasive approaches (robotic TME and transanal TME) demonstrated improved outcomes compared with laparoscopic TME.

SafeHeal Colovac Colorectal Anastomosis Protection Device evaluation (SAFE-2) pivotal study: an international randomized controlled study to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the Colovac Colorectal Anastomosis Protection Device.

AIM: Although proximal faecal diversion is standard of care to protect patients with high-risk colorectal anastomoses against septic complications of anastomotic leakage, it is associated with significant morbidity. The Colovac device (CD) is an intraluminal bypass device intended to avoid stoma creation in patients undergoing low anterior resection. A preliminary study (SAFE-1) completed in three European centres demonstrated 100% protection of colorectal anastomoses in 15 patients, as evidenced by the absence of faeces below the CD. This phase III trial (SAFE-2) aims to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the CD in a larger cohort of patients undergoing curative rectal cancer resection. METHODS: SAFE-2 is a pivotal, multicentre, prospective, open-label, randomized, controlled trial. Patients will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either the CD arm or the diverting loop ileostomy arm, with a recruitment target of 342 patients. The co-primary endpoints are the occurrence of major postoperative complications within 12 months of index surgery and the effectiveness of the CD in reducing stoma creation rates. Data regarding quality of life and patient's acceptance and tolerance of the device will be collected. DISCUSSION: SAFE-2 is a multicentre randomized, control trial assessing the efficacy and the safety of the CD in protecting low colorectal anastomoses created during oncological resection relative to standard diverting loop ileostomy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05010850.

Postoperative morbidity following Hartmann's procedure in comparison to anterior resection and abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer-a population-based study.

AIM: There is ongoing controversy regarding the extent to which Hartmann's procedure (HP) should be used in rectal cancer treatment. This study was designed to investigate 30-day postoperative morbidity and mortality following HP, anterior resection (AR) and abdominoperineal resection (APR) for rectal cancer using a national registry. METHODS: All patients operated for rectal cancer, tumour height 5-15 cm, between the years 2010 and 2017, were identified through the Swedish colorectal cancer registry. RESULTS: A total of 8476 patients were included: 1210 (14%) undergoing HP, 5406 (64%) AR and 1860 (22%) APR. HP was associated with an increased risk of intra-abdominal infection (OR 1.7, CI 1.26-2.28, P = 0.0004) compared to AR and APR, while APR was related to an increased risk of overall complications (OR 1.18, CI 1.01-1.40, P = 0.040). No significant difference was observed in the rate of reoperations and readmissions between HP, AR and APR, and type of surgical procedure was not a risk factor for 30-day mortality. Findings from a subgroup analysis of patients with a tumour 5-7 cm from the anal verge revealed that HP was not associated with increased risk for complications or 30-day mortality. CONCLUSIONS: For patients where AR is not appropriate HP is a valid alternative with a favourable outcome. APR was associated with the highest overall 30-day complication rate.

Low anterior resection syndrome phenotypes-Different symptom profiles for different patients.

AIM: Attention is increasingly being turned to functional outcomes as being central to colorectal cancer (CRC) survivorship. The current literature may underestimate the impact of evacuatory dysfunction on patient satisfaction with bowel function after anterior resection (AR) for CRC. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of post-AR symptoms of storage and evacuatory dysfunction on patient satisfaction and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). METHOD: A cross-sectional study was performed at an Australian hospital of patients post-AR for CRC (2012-2021). The postoperative bowel function scores used were: low anterior resection syndrome (LARS), St Mark's incontinence, Cleveland Clinic constipation and Altomare obstructive defaecation syndrome scores. Eight 'storage' and 'evacuatory' dysfunction symptoms were derived. A seven-point Likert scale measured patient satisfaction. The SF36v2® measured HRQoL. Linear regression assessed the association between symptoms, patient satisfaction and HRQoL. RESULTS: Overall, 248 patients participated (mean age 70.8 years, 57.3% male), comprising 103 with rectal cancer and 145 with sigmoid cancer. Of the symptoms that had a negative impact on patient satisfaction, six reflected evacuatory dysfunction, namely excessive straining (p < 0.001), one or more unsuccessful bowel movement attempt(s)/24 h (p < 0.001), anal/vaginal digitation (p = 0.005), regular enema use (p = 0.004), toilet revisiting (p = 0.004) and >10 min toileting (p = 0.004), and four reflected storage dysfunction, namely leaking flatus (p = 0.002), faecal urgency (p = 0.005), use of antidiarrhoeal medication (p = 0.001) and incontinence-related lifestyle alterations (p < 0.001). A total of 130 patients (53.5%) had 'no LARS', 56 (23.1%) had 'minor LARS' and 57 (23.4%) had 'major LARS'. Fifty-seven (44.5%) patients classified as having 'no LARS' had evacuatory dysfunction. CONCLUSION: Postoperative storage and evacuatory dysfunction symptoms have an adverse impact on patient satisfaction and HRQoL post-AR. The importance of comprehensively documenting symptoms of evacuatory dysfunction is highlighted. Further research is required to develop a patient satisfaction-weighted LARS-specific HRQoL instrument.

Predictors for temporary stomas non-closure among non-metastatic rectal cancer patients undergoing curative resection: a retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: The primary treatment for non-metastatic rectal cancer is curative resection. However, sphincter-preserving surgery may lead to complications. This study aims to develop a predictive model for stoma non-closure in rectal cancer patients who underwent curative-intent low anterior resection. METHODS: Consecutive patients diagnosed with non-metastatic rectal cancer between January 2005 and December 2017, who underwent low anterior resection, were retrospectively included in the Chang Gung Memorial Foundation Institutional Review Board. A comprehensive evaluation and analysis of potential risk factors linked to stoma non-closure were performed. RESULTS: Out of 956 patients with temporary stomas, 10.3% (n = 103) experienced non-closure primarily due to cancer recurrence and anastomosis-related issues. Through multivariate analysis, several preoperative risk factors significantly associated with stoma non-closure were identified, including advanced age, anastomotic leakage, positive nodal status, high preoperative CEA levels, lower rectal cancer presence, margin involvement, and an eGFR below 30 mL/min/1.73m2. A risk assessment model achieved an AUC of 0.724, with a cutoff of 2.5, 84.5% sensitivity, and 51.4% specificity. Importantly, the non-closure rate could rise to 16.6% when more than two risk factors were present, starkly contrasting the 3.7% non-closure rate observed in cases with a risk score of 2 or below (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Prognostic risk factors associated with the non-closure of a temporary stoma include advanced age, symptomatic anastomotic leakage, nodal status, high CEA levels, margin involvement, and an eGFR below 30 mL/min/1.73m2. Hence, it is crucial for surgeons to evaluate these factors and provide patients with a comprehensive prognosis before undergoing surgical intervention.

LASSO-based nomogram predicts the risk factors of low anterior resection syndrome for middle and low rectal cancer underwent robotic surgery.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to analyze the influencing factors of postoperative Low Anterior Resection Syndrome (LARS) in patients with middle and low rectal cancer who underwent robotic surgery. It also seeks to predict the probability of LARS through a visual, quantitative, and graphical nomogram. This approach is expected to lower the risk of postoperative LARS in these patients and improve their quality of life through effective prevention and early intervention. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This research involved patients with middle and low rectal cancer who underwent robotic surgery in the Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery at the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University from January 2015 to October 2022. A series of intestinal dysfunction symptoms arising from postoperative rectal cancer were diagnosed and graded using LARS scoring criteria. After the initial screening of all variables related to LARS with Lasso regression, they were included in logistic regression for further univariate and multivariate analysis to identify independent risk factors for LARS. A prediction model was then constructed. RESULTS: The study included 358 patients. The parameters identified by Lasso regression included obstruction, BMI, tumor localization, maximum tumor diameter, AJCC stage, stoma, neoadjuvant therapy (NAT), and postoperative adjuvant therapy (AT). Univariate and multivariate analyses indicated that a higher BMI, lower tumor localization, higher AJCC stage, neoadjuvant therapy, and postoperative adjuvant therapy were independent risk factors for total LARS. The AUC of the prediction nomogram was 0.834, with a sensitivity of 0.825 and specificity of 0.741. The calibration curve demonstrated excellent concordance with the nomogram, indicating the prediction curve fit the diagonal well. CONCLUSION: Higher BMI, lower tumor localization, higher AJCC stage, neoadjuvant therapy, and adjuvant therapy were identified as independent risk factors for total LARS. A new predictive nomogram for postoperative LARS in patients with middle and low rectal cancer undergoing robotic surgery was developed, proving to be stable and reliable. This tool will assist clinicians in managing the postoperative treatment of these patients, facilitating better clinical decision-making and maximizing patient benefits.

Short- and long-term morbidity after Taylor flap (oblique rectus abdominis flap) for perineal reconstruction after abdominoperineal resection: A single-center series of 140 patients.

BACKGROUND: Abdominoperineal resection (APR) leads to a substantial loss of tissue and a high rate of complications. The Taylor flap is a musculocutaneous flap used in reconstruction after APR. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to analyze the short and long-term morbidity of reconstruction with a Taylor flap (oblique rectus abdominis flap) after APR and to identify the risk factors for postoperative complications. METHODS: We retrospectively included all patients who had undergone APR with immediate reconstruction with a Taylor flap in our department between July 2000 and June 2018. Demographics, oncological data, treatment, and short- and long-term morbidity were reviewed. RESULTS: Among the 140 patients included, we identified early minor complications in 42 patients (30%) and 14 early major complications (10%). Total necrosis of the flap requiring its removal occurred in four patients (2.8%). Eleven patients (7.9%) presented with a midline incision hernia, and seven (5%) presented with a subcostal incision hernia. No perineal hernia was found. No risk factors for the complications were identified. CONCLUSION: The Taylor flap is a safe procedure with few complications and limited donor site morbidity. Moreover, it prevents perineal hernias. These results confirm that the Taylor flap is a well-suited procedure for reconstruction after APR.

Low Anterior Resection Syndrome. Anatomical Changes after Anterior Rectal Resection.

In this editorial, the authors bring to the attention of surgeons a personal point of view with the intention of offering a series of anatomical arguments to explain the high rate of functional complications following ultralow rectal resections, resections dominated by faecal incontinence of various intensities. Having as a starting point the anatomy of the pelvic floor and the posterior perineum, the authors are concerned with the functional outcomes of the sphincter-saving anterior rectal resection, regarding the low and ultralow resection. Technically, a conservative surgery for low rectal cancer has been currently performed. If 25 years ago the abdominoperineal resection was the gold standard for rectal cancer located under 7cm from the anal verge, nowadays the preservation of the anal canal as a partner for colon anastomosis has been accomplished. Progressively, from a desire to preserve the normal passage of stool into the anal canal, as anatomically and physiologically as possible, the distal limit of resection was lowered to 2-4 cm from the anal verge and ultra-low anastomoses were created, within the anal sphincter complex. The stated goal: keep the oncological safety standard and, at the same time, avoid definitive colostomy. Starting from the normal anatomy of the pelvic floor and the anorectal segment, the authors take a look at the alterations of the visceral, muscular, and nerve structures as a consequence of the low anterior resection and, particularly, the ultralow anterior resection. A significant degree of functional outcomes regarding defecation, with the onset of marked disabilities of anal continence, the major consequence being anal incontinence (30-70%), have been noticed. The authors go under review for the main anatomical and physiological changes that accompany anterior rectal resection. Conclusions: Thus, the following questions arise: what is the lower limit of resection to avoid total fecal incontinence? Is total incontinence a greater handicap than colostomy or is it not? The answers cannot be supported by solid arguments at this time, but the need to initiate future studies dedicated to this problem emerges.

Construction of a nomogram model to predict technical difficulty in performing laparoscopic sphincter-preserving radical resection for rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal surgeons are well aware that performing surgery for rectal cancer becomes more challenging in obese patients with narrow and deep pelvic cavities. Therefore, it is essential for colorectal surgeons to have a comprehensive understanding of pelvic structure prior to surgery and anticipate potential surgical difficulties. AIM: To evaluate predictive parameters for technical challenges encountered during laparoscopic radical sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer. METHODS: We retrospectively gathered data from 162 consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic radical sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer. Three-dimensional reconstruction of pelvic bone and soft tissue parameters was conducted using computed tomography (CT) scans. Operative difficulty was categorized as either high or low, and multivariate logistic regression analysis was employed to identify predictors of operative difficulty, ultimately creating a nomogram. RESULTS: Out of 162 patients, 21 (13.0%) were classified in the high surgical difficulty group, while 141 (87.0%) were in the low surgical difficulty group. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the surgical approach using laparoscopic intersphincteric dissection, intraoperative preventive ostomy, and the sacrococcygeal distance were independent risk factors for highly difficult laparoscopic radical sphincter-sparing surgery for rectal cancer (P < 0.05). Conversely, the anterior-posterior diameter of pelvic inlet/sacrococcygeal distance was identified as a protective factor (P < 0.05). A nomogram was subsequently constructed, demonstrating good predictive accuracy (C-index = 0.834). CONCLUSION: The surgical approach, intraoperative preventive ostomy, the sacrococcygeal distance, and the anterior-posterior diameter of pelvic inlet/sacrococcygeal distance could help to predict the difficulty of laparoscopic radical sphincter-preserving surgery.

Effect of Robotic Inferior Mesenteric Artery Ligation Level on Low Anterior Resection Syndrome in Rectum Cancer.

Background: Life expectancy of patients with rectal cancer is increasing day by day with innovative treatments. Low anterior resection syndrome (LARS), which disrupts the comfort of life in these patients, has become a serious problem. We aimed to evaluate the effect of high ligation (HL) and low ligation (LL) techniques on LARS in rectal cancer surgery performed with the robotic method. Materials and Methods: The data of patients diagnosed with mid-distal rectal cancer between 2016 and 2021 who underwent robotic low anterior resection by the same team in the same center with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy were retrospectively evaluated. Patients were divided into two groups as those who underwent HL and LL procedures. Preoperative, 8 weeks after neoadjuvant treatment, 3 and 12 months after ileostomy closure were evaluated. Results: A total of 84 patients (41 HL, 43 LL) were included in the study. There was no statistically significant difference between the demographic characteristics and pathology data of the patients. Although there was a decrease in LARS scores after neoadjuvant treatment, there was a statistically significant difference between the two groups at 3 and 12 months after ileostomy closure (P: .001, P: .015). Conclusions: In patients who underwent robotic low anterior resection, there is a statistically significant difference in the LARS score in the first 1 year with the LL technique compared with that of the HL technique, and the LL technique has superiority in reducing the development of LARS between the two oncologically indistinguishable methods.

The effect of implementing a transanal minimally invasive surgical programme for the local excision of early rectal neoplasia on outcomes in a tertiary referral rectal cancer centre.

Transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) is a surgical alternative to proctectomy in the management of complex rectal polyps and early rectal cancers. In 2016, our institution introduced a TAMIS programme. The purpose of this study was to evaluate changes in practice and outcomes in our institution in the 3 years before and after the implementation of TAMIS. We conducted a retrospective analysis of a prospective database of patients who underwent proctectomy or TAMIS for the management of complex rectal polyps or early rectal cancers at our institution between 2013 and 2018. 96 patients were included in this study (41 proctectomy vs 55 TAMIS). A significant reduction was noted in the number of proctectomies performed in the 3 years after the implementation of TAMIS as compared to the 3 years before (13 vs 28) ( P  < 0.001); 43% of patients ( n  = 12) who underwent proctectomy in the period prior to implementation of TAMIS were American Society of Anaesthesiologists grade III, as compared to only 15% ( n  = 2) of patients during the period following TAMIS implementation ( P  = 0.02). TAMIS was associated with a significant reduction in length of inpatient stay ( P  < 0.001). Oncological outcomes were comparable between groups (log rank P  = 0.83). Our findings support TAMIS as a safe and effective alternative to radical resection. The availability of TAMIS has resulted in a significant reduction in the number of comorbid patients undergoing proctectomy at our institution. Consequently, we have observed a significant reduction in postoperative complications over this time period.

Treatment techniques for rectovaginal fistulas after low rectal resection for deep endometriosis.

Endometriosis is a benign gynecologic affection that may lead to major surgeries, such as colorectal resections. Rectovaginal fistulas (RVF) are among the possible complications. When they occur, it is necessary to adapt the repair surgery as best as possible to limit their functional consequences. This video shows three different techniques for correcting RVF after rectal resection for endometriosis, with a combination of perineal surgery and laparoscopy: a mucosal flap, a transanal transection and single stapled anastomosis (TTSS) and a pull through. Supplementary file1 (MP4 469658 KB).

Robotic-assisted surgery for left-sided colon and rectal resections is associated with reduction in the postoperative surgical stress response and improved short-term outcomes: a cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: There is growing evidence that the use of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) in colorectal cancer resections is associated with improved short-term outcomes when compared to laparoscopic surgery (LS) or open surgery (OS), possibly through a reduced systemic inflammatory response (SIR). Serum C-reactive protein (CRP) is a sensitive SIR biomarker and its utility in the early identification of post-operative complications has been validated in a variety of surgical procedures. There remains a paucity of studies characterising post-operative SIR in RAS. METHODS: Retrospective study of a prospectively collected database of consecutive patients undergoing OS, LS and RAS for left-sided and rectal cancer in a single high-volume unit. Patient and disease characteristics, post-operative CRP levels, and clinical outcomes were reviewed, and their relationships explored within binary logistic regression and propensity scores matched models. RESULTS: A total of 1031 patients were included (483 OS, 376 LS, and 172 RAS). RAS and LS were associated with lower CRP levels across the first 4 post-operative days (p < 0.001) as well as reduced complications and length of stay compared to OS in unadjusted analyses. In binary logistic regression models, RAS was independently associated with lower CRP levels at Day 3 post-operatively (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.21-0.59, p < 0.001) and a reduction in the rate of all complications (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.26-0.56, p < 0.001) and major complications (OR 0.5, 95% CI 0.26-0.95, p = 0.036). Within a propensity scores matched model comparing LS versus RAS specifically, RAS was associated with lower post-operative CRP levels in the first two post-operative days, a lower proportion of patients with a CRP ≥ 150 mg/L at Day 3 (20.9% versus 30.5%, p = 0.036) and a lower rate of all complications (34.7% versus 46.7%, p = 0.033). CONCLUSIONS: The present observational study shows that an RAS approach was associated with lower postoperative SIR, and a better postoperative complications profile.

Preoperative beta blockers and other drugs in relation to anastomotic leakage after anterior resection for rectal cancer.

AIM: Previous research has indicated that preoperative beta blocker therapy is associated with a decreased risk of complications after surgery for rectal cancer. This is thought to arise because of the anti-inflammatory activity of the drug. These results need to be reproduced and analyses extended to other drugs with such properties, as this information might be useful in clinical decision-making. The main aim of this work was to replicate previous findings of beta blocker use as a prognostic marker for postoperative leakage. We also investigated whether drug exposure might induce anastomotic leaks. METHOD: This is a retrospective multicentre cohort study, comprising 1126 patients who underwent anterior resection for rectal cancer between 2014 and 2018. The use of any preoperative beta blocker was treated as the primary exposure, while anastomotic leakage within 12 months of surgery was the outcome. Secondary exposures comprised angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers, statins and metformin. Using multivariable regression, we performed a replication analysis with a predictive aim for beta blockers only, while adjustment for confounding was done in more causally oriented analyses for all drugs. We estimated incidence rate ratio (IRR) and relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Anastomotic leakage occurred in 20.6% of patients. Preoperative beta blockers were used by 22.7% of the cohort, while the leak distribution was almost identical between exposure groups. In the main replication analysis, no association could be detected (IRR 0.95, 95% CI 0.68-1.33). In the causally oriented analyses, only metformin affected the risk of leakage (RR 1.59, 95% Cl 1.31-1.92). CONCLUSION: While previous research has suggested that preoperative beta blocker use could be prognostic of anastomotic leakage, this study could not detect any such association. On the contrary, our results indicate that preoperative beta blocker use neither predicts nor causes anastomotic leakage after anterior resection for rectal cancer.