Laparoscopic delayed coloanal anastomosis without diverting ileostomy for low rectal cancer surgery: 85 consecutive patients from a single institution

Is Delaying a Coloanal Anastomosis the Ideal Solution for Rectal Surgery?: Analysis of a Multicentric Cohort of 564 Patients From the GRECCAR

OBJECTIVES

To assess the specific results of delayed coloanal anastomosis (DCAA) in light of its 2 main indications.

BACKGROUND

DCAA can be proposed either immediately after a low anterior resection (primary DCAA) or after the failure of a primary pelvic surgery as a salvage procedure (salvage DCAA).

METHODS

All patients who underwent DCAA intervention at 30 GRECCAR-affiliated hospitals between 2010 and 2021 were retrospectively included.

RESULTS

Five hundred sixty-four patients (male: 63%; median age: 62 years; interquartile range: 53-69) underwent a DCAA: 66% for primary DCAA and 34% for salvage DCAA. Overall morbidity, major morbidity, and mortality were 57%, 30%, and 1.1%, respectively, without any significant differences between primary DCAA and salvage DCAA ( P = 0.933; P = 0.238, and P = 0.410, respectively). Anastomotic leakage was more frequent after salvage DCAA (23%) than after primary DCAA (15%), ( P = 0.016).Fifty-five patients (10%) developed necrosis of the intra-abdominal colon. In multivariate analysis, intra-abdominal colon necrosis was significantly associated with male sex [odds ratio (OR) = 2.67 95% CI: 1.22-6.49; P = 0.020], body mass index >25 (OR = 2.78 95% CI: 1.37-6.00; P = 0.006), and peripheral artery disease (OR = 4.68 95% CI: 1.12-19.1; P = 0.030). The occurrence of this complication was similar between primary DCAA (11%) and salvage DCAA (8%), ( P = 0.289).Preservation of bowel continuity was reached 3 years after DCAA in 74% of the cohort (primary DCAA: 77% vs salvage DCAA: 68%, P = 0.031). Among patients with a DCAA mannered without diverting stoma, 75% (301/403) have never required a stoma at the last follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

DCAA makes it possible to definitively avoid a stoma in 75% of patients when mannered initially without a stoma and to save bowel continuity in 68% of the patients in the setting of failure of primary pelvic surgery.

Modified pull-through coloanal anastomosis to avoid permanent stomas and reduce postoperative complications for lower rectal tumors

BACKGROUND

We performed pull-through hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis immediately after sphincter-preserving ultralow anterior resection (ULAR) [pull-through ultra (PTU)] to avoid permanent stoma and reduce postoperative complications of lower rectal tumors. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of PTU versus non-PTU (stapled or hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis with diverting stoma) after sphincter-preserving ULAR for lower rectal tumors.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study analyzed prospectively maintained data from 100 consecutive patients who underwent PTU (n = 29) or non-PTU (n = 71) after sphincter-preserving ULAR for rectal tumors between January 2011 and March 2023. In PTU, hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis was immediately performed using 16 stitches of 4-0 monofilament suture during primary surgery. The clinical outcomes were assessed. The primary outcomes were rates of permanent stomas and overall postoperative complications.

RESULTS

The PTU group was significantly less likely to require a permanent stoma than the non-PTU group (P < 0.01). None of the patients in the PTU group required permanent stoma and the rate of overall complications was significantly lower in the PTU group (P = 0.01). The median operative time was comparable between the two groups (P = 0.33) but the median operative time during the second stage was significantly shorter in the PTU group (P < 0.01). The rates of anastomotic leakage and complications of Clavien-Dindo grade III were comparable between the two groups. Diverting ileostomy was performed in two patients with an anastomotic leak in the PTU group. The PTU group was significantly less likely to require a diverting ileostomy than those in the non-PTU group (P < 0.01). The composite length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the PTU group (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

PTU via immediate coloanal anastomosis for lower rectal tumors is a safe alternative to the current sphincter-preserving ULAR with diverting ileostomy for patients who wish to avoid a stoma.

Parachute-like pull-through anastomosis for low rectal cancer: a new method for preservation of anal function

BACKGROUND

With recent improvements in surgical technique, oncological outcomes of low rectal cancer have improved over time. But the QoL impairment as a result of anal functional disorder cannot be ignored. And the incidence of anastomosis-related complications cannot be ignored. To address these problems, a personal technique for pull-through coloanal anastomosis (parachute-like intussuscept pull-through anastomosis) was introduced and evaluated. This technique can relatively reduce surgical complications, minimize the impact of anal function, and obviate a colostomy creation.

METHODS

Between June 2020 and April 2021, 14 consecutive patients with rectal cancer underwent laparoscopic-assisted resection of rectal cancer in our hospital. Parachute-like pull-through anastomosis method was performed in all patients. Anal function, perioperative details, and postoperative outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

The mean (SD) operative time of first stage was 282.1 min (range 220-370) with an average estimated blood loss of 90.3 mL (range 33-200). And the mean (SD) operative time of second was 46 min (range 25-76) with an average estimated blood loss of 16.1 mL (range 5-50). Wexner scores declined significantly during the median follow-up of 18 months. Four postoperative anastomosis-related complications occurred in 14 patients, including perianastomotic abscess: 1 case (7%), anastomotic stricture: 1 case (7%), and colonic ischemia of the exteriorized colonic segment: 2 cases (14%).

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that the method can facilitate safe and easy completion of coloanal anastomosis, using parachute-like pull-through anastomosis, with acceptable anal function.

Cost‐effectiveness comparison of delayed versus immediate coloanal anastomosis following ultralow anterior resection for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Following ultralow anterior resection for distal rectal cancers, a coloanal anastomosis is usually created along with a defunctioning ileostomy (DI). Recent evidence suggests that abdominoperineal pull-through with delayed coloanal anastomosis (DCAA) is a viable alternative to immediate coloanal anastomosis (ICAA), minimizing the risk of anastomotic leakage and avoiding the need for stoma creation with the risk of stoma-associated morbidity. However, DCAA requires a longer initial hospitalization. We aimed to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis to compare DCAA versus ICAA for elective rectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

A decision tree model was used to compare the cost-effectiveness of the two strategies. Cost data were obtained from the 2019 to 2020 United Kingdom National Health Service reference costs. Model probabilities were derived from published studies. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to evaluate the robustness of the results.

RESULTS

DCAA was the overall cheaper strategy at £13 541 compared with £14 856 for ICAA in the base case analysis. This was explained by the decreased overall costs of hospitalization/surgery, reduction in costs associated with anastomotic or stoma-related complications, specifically dehydration-induced hospital readmissions and avoidance of stoma maintenance costs. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that DCAA remained consistently more inexpensive except when the duration of total parenteral nutrition exceeded 14 days.

CONCLUSION

Despite a longer index hospitalization with higher initial costs, this economic analysis demonstrates that DCAA without stoma is overall more cost-effective compared with ICAA with DI following ultralow anterior resection. Cost savings should be considered an additional benefit when selecting the DCAA approach for rectal cancer surgery.

Delayed pull-through coloanal anastomosis without temporary stoma: an alternative to the standard manual side-to-end coloanal anastomosis with temporary stoma? A comparative study in 223 patients with low rectal cancer

AIM

After total mesorectal excision (TME) for low rectal cancer, current guideline recommendations for sphincter-saving surgery are to perform a side-to-end manual coloanal anastomosis (CAA) (or with J-pouch) with a temporary stoma. Our study aimed to evaluate if delayed pull-through coloanal anastomosis (DCAA) without a temporary stoma could represent a safe alternative in low rectal cancer.

METHOD

From 2003 to 2020, 223 consecutive patients with low rectal cancer undergoing TME were compared: CAA and diverting stoma (n = 190) versus DCAA without stoma (n = 33).

RESULTS

Overall 3-month and severe (Dindo ≥ IIIb) morbidity rates were similar in CAA versus DCAA groups: 34% (65/190) vs. 36% (12/33) and 2.6% (5/190) vs. 3% (1/33), respectively. In the DCAA group, only one patient (3%) underwent reoperation (Hartmann's procedure) at day 3 due to colon necrosis. The anastomotic leakage rate (both clinical and radiological) was significantly higher after CAA than DCAA: 28% (53/190) vs. 3% (1/33; p = 0.00138). Failure of the procedure (with return to stoma) was observed in 8% (15/190) vs. 6% (2/33) of patients after CAA and DCAA respectively (not significant).

CONCLUSION

Our comparative study suggested that in patients with low rectal cancer, DCAA without a temporary stoma could represent an interesting alternative to the actual recommended CAA with a temporary ileostomy. DCAA could offer two major advantages over CAA: a significantly lower rate of anastomotic leakage and absence of a temporary stoma and its potential complications (rehospitalization, dehydration, wound hernia after stoma closure).

Redo surgery after low anterior resection for chronic pelvic sinus and anastomotic disruption. Could pull-through procedure with delayed anastomosis be a feasible alternative? Case reports and narrative review

Introduction

Case presentation

Discussion

Conclusion

•

Complications after colorectal anastomosis, such as septic leakage or anastomotic disruption, remain a problem to deal with for colorectal surgeons.

•

Conversion to terminal colostomy is the most frequent option chosen, but the most of time restoration of bowel continuity is not performed.

•

Delayed coloanal anastomosis with pull-through procedure described by Turnbull-Cutait might be an option to consider in difficult situations, to maintain or to restore intestinal continuity and could be also chosen as a first option for coloanal anastomosis.

Surgical outcomes of Turnbull-Cutait delayed coloanal anastomosis with pull-through versus immediate coloanal anastomosis with diverting stoma after total mesorectal excision for low rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Theoretical advantages of Turnbull-Cutait pull-through delayed coloanal anastomosis (DCAA) are a reduced risk of anastomotic leak and therefore avoidance of stoma. Gradually abandoned in favor of immediate coloanal anastomosis (ICAA) with diverting stoma, DCAA has regained popularity in recent years in reconstructive surgery for low RC, especially when combined with minimally invasive surgery (MIS). The aim of this study was to perform the first meta-analysis, exploring the safety and outcomes of DCAA compared to ICAA with protective stoma.

METHODS

A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL and Google Scholar databases was performed for studies published from January 2000 until December 2020. The systematic review and meta-analysis were performed according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Review on Interventions recommendations and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines.

RESULTS

Out of 2626 studies screened, 9 were included in the systematic review and 4 studies in the meta-analysis. Outcomes included were postoperative complications, pelvic sepsis and risk of definitive stoma. Considering postoperative complications classified as Clavien-Dindo III, no significant difference existed in the rate of postoperative morbidity between DCAA and ICAA (13% versus 21%; OR 1.17; 95% CI 0.38-3.62; p = 0.78; I² = 20%). Patients in the DCAA group experienced a lower rate of postoperative pelvic sepsis compared with patients undergoing ICAA with diverting stoma (7% versus 14%; OR 0.37; 95% CI 0.16-0.85; p = 0.02; I² = 0%). The risk of definitive stoma was comparable between the two groups (2% versus 2% OR 0.77; 95% CI 0.15-3.85; p = 0.75; I² = 0%).

CONCLUSIONS

According to the limited current evidence, DCAA is associated with a significant decrease in pelvic sepsis. Further prospective trials focusing on oncologic and functional outcomes are needed.

Delayed coloanal anastomosis as a stoma-sparing alternative to immediate coloanal anastomosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Recent clinical trials have demonstrated favorable outcomes associated with trans-anal colonic pull-through for rectal resection followed by delayed coloanal anastomoses (DCA), resulting in a resurgence in popularity of the technique. This meta-analysis aims to review existing literature to evaluate the postoperative complications associated with DCA, and to make comparisons with immediate coloanal anastomoses (ICA) after colorectal resection to assess the suitability of DCA as an alternative form of surgical treatment.

METHODS

Medline and Embase databases were reviewed from inception until 31 July 2020 in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Single-arm studies that involved patients undergoing DCA for benign or malignant causes were selected, and meta-analysis of proportions was conducted to determine the prevalence of postoperative complications following DCA. Comparative studies comparing postoperative outcomes between DCA and ICA were also included for comparative meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Patients undergoing DCA were significantly less likely to require diverting stoma construction as compared to ICA (odds ratio [OR] = 0.04; confidence interval [CI]: 0.02-0.07; P < 0.001). Overall postoperative morbidity (OR = 0.50; 95% CI: 0.23-1.12; P = 0.09) and mortality (OR = 0.49, 95% CI: 0.12-1.98; P = 0.32) was comparable between DCA and ICA groups. No significant differences in perioperative complications, such as anastomotic leakage (OR = 0.42; 95% CI: 0.11-1.64; P = 0.21), postoperative ileus, pelvic abscesses, or sepsis, were noted between DCA and ICA.

CONCLUSION

Our study shows no differences in complications or functional outcomes between DCA and ICA. Pooled analysis expectedly revealed a lower rate of diverting stoma in patients undergoing DCA. DCA is thus a safe alternative to current surgical practices where avoidance of a stoma is desired.

Short stump and high anastomosis pull-through (SHiP) procedure for delayed coloanal anastomosis with no protective stoma for low rectal cancer

Despite advances in coloanal anastomosis techniques, satisfactory procedures completed without complications remain lacking. We investigated the effectiveness of our recently developed ‘Short stump and High anastomosis Pull-through’ (SHiP) procedure for delayed coloanal anastomosis without a stoma. In this retrospective study, we analysed functional outcomes, morbidity, and mortality rates and local recurrence of 37 patients treated using SHiP procedure, out of the 282 patients affected by rectal cancer treated in our institution between 2012 and 2020. The inclusion criterion was that the rectal cancer be located within 4 cm from the anal margin. One patient died of local and pulmonary recurrence after 6 years, one developed lung and liver metastases after 2 years, and one experienced local recurrence 2.5 years after surgery. No major leak, retraction, or ischaemia of the colonic stump occurred; the perioperative mortality rate was zero. Five patients (13.51%) had early complications. Stenosis of the anastomosis, which occurred in nine patients (24.3%), was the only long-term complication; only three (8.1%) were symptomatic and were treated with endoscopic dilation. The mean Wexner scores at 24 and 36 months were 8.3 and 8.1 points, respectively. At the 36-month check-up, six patients (24%) had major LARS, ten (40%) had minor LARS, and nine (36%) had no LARS. The functional results in terms of LARS were similar to those previously reported after immediate coloanal anastomosis with protective stoma. The SHiP procedure resulted in a drastic reduction in major complications, and none of the patients had a stoma.

Delayed coloanal anastomosis: an alternative option for restorative rectal cancer surgery after high-dose pelvic radiotherapy for prostate cancer

AIM

Restorative total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer after high-dose pelvic radiotherapy for prostate cancer has been reported to provide an unacceptable rate of pelvic sepsis. In a previous publication we proposed that delayed coloanal anastomosis (DCAA) should be performed in this situation. The present study aimed to assess the feasibility and outcomes of this strategy.

METHOD

Between 2000 and 2018, 1094 men were operated on for rectal cancer in our institution. All men with T2/T3 mid and low rectal cancer with preoperative radiotherapy and restorative TME were considered for this study (n = 416). Patients with external-beam high-dose radiotherapy (EBHRT) for prostate cancer (70-78 Gy) were identified and compared with patients with conventional long-course chemoradiotherapy (CRT) followed by TME. We compared our already published historical cohort (2000-2012), including arm A (CRT + TME; n = 236) and arm B (EBHRT + TME; n = 12), with our early cohort (2013-2018), including arm C (CRT + TME; n = 158) and arm D (EBHRT + TME-DCAA; n = 10). The end-points were morbidity, pelvic sepsis, reoperation rate and quality of the specimen.

RESULTS

Overall morbidity was not significantly different between groups. Pelvic sepsis decreased from 50% (arm B) to 10% (arm D) with the use of DCAA (P = 0.074), and was similar between arms A, C and D. Quality of the specimen was not significantly different between the four groups.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that TME with DCAA in patients with previous EBHRT is feasible, with the same postoperative pelvic sepsis rate as conventional CRT.

Turnbull-Cutait technique without ileostomy after total mesorectal excision is associated with acceptably low early post-operative morbidity

Background

This study aimed to compare the standard one‐stage coloanal anastomosis (CAA) technique plus diverting ileostomy and the Turnbull–Cutait (T–C) technique with delayed CAA in terms of early post‐operative morbidity in patients with low rectal cancer.

Methods

A total of 33 patients with non‐metastatic distal rectal cancer who were operated with one of the two different reconstruction methods (one‐stage CAA plus diverting ileostomy or two‐stage T–C technique with delayed CAA) after total mesorectal excision were included in this retrospective study. The two groups were compared for early post‐operative morbidity within 30 post‐operative days using complication frequency, Clavien–Dindo classification and Comprehensive Complication Index scores.

Results

The two groups did not differ in terms of morbidity parameters, including frequency of any morbidity, presence of grade 3b morbidity requiring management under general anaesthesia, as well as Comprehensive Complication Index score (P > 0.05 for all).

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that the two techniques did not differ in terms of early post‐operative morbidity. Owing to its comparable morbidity and safety to CAA plus concomitant ileostomy performed at the same session, the T–C technique may be considered in distal rectal cancer patients refusing to have a temporary stoma and in patients in whom CAA poses technical difficulties during the initial operation.

Two-Stage Turnbull-Cutait Pull-Through Coloanal Anastomosis for Low Rectal Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Two-stage Turnbull-Cutait pull-through hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis seems to provide benefits in terms of postoperative morbidity compared with standard hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis associated with diverting ileostomy and further ileostomy reversal in patients operated on for low rectal cancer.

Objective

To compare 30-day postoperative and 1-year follow-up results of Turnbull-Cutait pull-through hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis and standard hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis after ultralow rectal resection for rectal cancer.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Multicenter randomized clinical trial. Neither patients nor surgeons were blinded for technique. Patients were recruited in 3 centers, Bellvitge University Hospital and Valle d'Hebron University Hospital in Spain and Instituto Nazionale Tumori Fondazione G. Pascale-Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico in Italy. Patients undergoing ultralow anterior rectal resection needing hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis were randomly assigned to 2-stage Turnbull-Cutait pull-through hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis or standard hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis associated with diverting ileostomy. Data were analyzed between June 2012 and October 2018.

Interventions

All patients underwent ultralow anterior resection. Patients assigned to the 2-stage Turnbull-Cutait pull-through group underwent exteriorization of a segment of left colon through the anal canal and, after 6 to 10 days, the exteriorized colon was resected and a delayed hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis was performed. For patients assigned to standard coloanal anastomosis, the hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis was performed with diverting ileostomy at first operation. Closure of the ileostomy was planned after 6 to 8 months.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Primary outcome was 30-day postoperative morbidity. For the standard hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis with diverting ileostomy group, overall postoperative morbidity includes 30-day postoperative complications of the ileostomy closure.

Results

Ninety-two white patients, 72 men and 20 women, with a median age of 62 years, were randomized and included in the analysis. Forty-six patients received standard hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis with diverting ileostomy and 46 received the 2-stage pull-through hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis. Seven patients (15.2%) in the standard hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis group did not undergo reversal ileostomy, and 1 patient (2.2%) in the 2-stage pull-through hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis group did not undergo delayed coloanal anastomosis. The 30-day overall composite postoperative complications rate was similar between the 2 groups (34.8% in 2-stage pull-through hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis group vs 45.7% in standard hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis group; P = .40), with a difference of -10.9 (95% CI, -29.5 to 8.9).

Conclusions and Relevance

The 2-stage pull-through hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis after ultralow anterior resection for low rectal cancer is safe and does not increase the postoperative morbidity rate compared with standard coloanal anastomosis with covering ileostomy followed by ileostomy closure.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01766661.

Delayed Colo-anal Anastomosis for Rectal Cancer: Pelvic Morbidity, Functional Results and Oncological Outcomes: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Delayed colo-anal anastomosis (DCAA) has received renewed interest thanks to its reduction in anastomotic leakage rate without the use of stoma to protect a low rectal anastomosis. The aim of this review was to summarize the available literature on DCAA following rectal cancer resection and to report clinical, oncological and functional results.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature review was conducted including MEDLINE/Pubmed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, clinicaltrials.gov and the Cochrane database of systematic reviews through July 2018. The review was conducted according to MOOSE guidelines. Quality was appraised with the methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS) tool.

RESULTS

Eight observational studies (409 patients) were included. Average MINORS score was 9.6/14 in seven non-comparative studies and 17/22 in one comparative study. Six studies reported no anastomotic leak. Pelvic sepsis/abscess ranged from 0 to 25%. Mortality rate was <3% in seven studies and 12.5% in one. Poor fecal continence was reported in <30% of patients. Need for permanent stoma was ≤2% in six studies. A five-year survival rate ranged from 63.8 to 81% (four studies). Loco-regional recurrence rate ranged from 4.8 to 14.3% at 3 years (four studies) and from 6 to 38.8% at 5 years (three studies).

CONCLUSION

DCAA offers an alternative to primary straight colo-anal anastomosis for low rectal cancer. The benefits include reduced risk of anastomotic leakage and pelvic sepsis, and no need for protective ileostomy, with good functional and oncological outcomes. Results of ongoing randomized controlled trials comparing DCAA with straight colo-anal anastomosis and protective stoma are awaited to draw definitive conclusions.