Functional outcome after intersphincteric resection of the rectum with coloanal anastomosis in low rectal cancer

International standardization and optimization group for intersphincteric resection (ISOG-ISR): modified Delphi consensus on anatomy, definition, indication, surgical technique, specimen description and functional outcome

AIM

Intersphincteric resection (ISR) is an oncologically complex operation for very low-lying rectal cancers. Yet, definition, anatomical description, operative indications and operative approaches to ISR are not standardized. The aim of this study was to standardize the definition of ISR by reaching international consensus from the experts in the field. This standardization will allow meaningful comparison in the literature in the future.

METHOD

A modified Delphi approach with three rounds of questionnaire was adopted. A total of 29 international experts from 11 countries were recruited for this study. Six domains with a total of 37 statements were examined, including anatomical definition; definition of intersphincteric dissection, intersphincteric resection (ISR) and ultra-low anterior resection (uLAR); indication for ISR; surgical technique of ISR; specimen description of ISR; and functional outcome assessment protocol.

RESULTS

Three rounds of questionnaire were performed (response rate 100%, 89.6%, 89.6%). Agreement (≥80%) reached standardization on 36 statements.

CONCLUSION

This study provides an international expert consensus-based definition and standardization of ISR. This is the first study standardizing terminology and definition of deep pelvis/anal canal anatomy from a surgical point of view. Intersphincteric dissection, ISR and uLAR were specifically defined for precise surgical description. Indication for ISR was determined by the rectal tumour's maximal radial infiltration (T stage) below the levator ani. A new surgical definition of T3isp was reached by consensus to define T3 low rectal tumours infiltrating the intersphincteric plane. A practical flowchart for surgical indication for uLAR/ISR/abdominoperineal resection was developed. A standardized ISR surgical technique and functional outcome assessment protocol was defined.

High Risk of Low Anterior Resection Syndrome in Long-term Follow-up After Anastomotic Leakage in Anterior Resection for Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Low anterior resection syndrome is common after sphincter-sparing surgery, but it is unclear to what extent anastomotic leakage after anterior resection contributes to this condition.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to assess the long-term effect of anastomotic leakage on the occurrence of major low anterior resection syndrome.

DESIGN

This is a retrospective observational cohort study evaluating low anterior resection syndrome 4 to 11 years after index surgery. After propensity score-matching using the covariates sex, age, tumor stage, comorbidity, neoadjuvant treatment, extent of mesorectal excision, and defunctioning stoma at index surgery, the effect of anastomotic leakage on low anterior resection syndrome was investigated using relative risk and 95% CI.

SETTINGS

This multicenter study included patients from 15 Swedish hospitals between 2007 and 2013.

PATIENTS

Patients who underwent anterior resection for rectal cancer were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Outcome measures included patient-reported major low anterior resection syndrome, obtained via a postal questionnaire that included a question on stoma status.

RESULTS

Among 1099 patients, 653 (59.4%) responded in at a median of 83.5 (interquartile range 66 to 110) months postoperatively. After excluding patients with residual stoma or incomplete responses, 544 remained; of these, 42 had anastomotic leakage. Patients with anastomotic leakage were more likely to have major low anterior resection syndrome (66.7% [28/42]) than patients without leakage (45.8% [230/502]). After matching, anastomotic leakage was significantly related to major low anterior resection syndrome (relative risk 2.3; 95% CI 1.4-3.9) and the individual symptom of urgency (relative risk 2.1; 95% CI 1.1-4.1).

LIMITATIONS

This study was limited by its retrospective observational study design.

CONCLUSIONS

In long-term follow-up, major low anterior resection syndrome is common after anterior resection for rectal cancer. Anastomotic leakage appears to increase the risk of major low anterior resection syndrome, with urgency as a major contributing symptom. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B868 .

ALTO RIESGO DE SNDROME DE RESECCIN ANTERIOR BAJA EN EL SEGUIMIENTO A LARGO PLAZO TRAS FUGA ANASTOMTICA EN RESECCIN ANTERIOR POR CNCER DE RECTO

ANTECEDENTES:El síndrome de resección anterior baja es común después de una cirugía con preservación de esfínter pero no está claro hasta qué punto contribuye a esta condición la fuga anastomótica después de una resección anterior.OBJETIVO:El objetivo de este estudio es evaluar el efecto a largo plazo de la fuga anastomótica sobre la aparición de un síndrome de resección anterior baja mayor.DISEÑO:Se trata de un estudio de cohorte observacional retrospectivo que evalúa el síndrome de resección anterior baja 4-11 años después de la cirugía índice. Después del apareamiento por puntuación de propensión utilizando las covariables sexo, edad, estadio del tumor, comorbilidad, tratamiento neoadyuvante, extensión de la escisión mesorrectal y estoma de derivación en la cirugía índice, se investigó el efecto de la fuga anastomótica en el síndrome de resección anterior baja utilizando el riesgo relativo y intervalos de confianza de 95%.AJUSTES:Este estudio multicéntrico incluyó pacientes de 15 hospitales suecos entre 2007 y 2013.PACIENTES:Se incluyeron pacientes que fueron sometidos a resección anterior por cáncer de recto.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE DESENLACE:Síndrome de resección anterior baja mayor informado por el paciente, obtenido a través de un cuestionario postal que incluye una pregunta sobre el estado de estomas.RESULTADOS:De 1099 pacientes, 653 (59,4%) respondieron una mediana de 83,5 meses después de la operación (rango intercuartílico 66-110).Después de excluir a los pacientes con estoma residual o respuestas incompletas, quedaron 544; de estos, 42 tuvieron fuga anastomótica. Los pacientes con fuga anastomótica tenían síndrome de resección anterior baja mayor en el 66,7% (28/42) en comparación con el 45,8% (230/502) de los pacientes sin fuga. Después del apareamiento, la fuga anastomótica se relacionó significativamente con el síndrome de resección anterior baja mayor (riesgo relativo 2,3; intervalo de confianza del 95%: 1,4-3,9) y con el síntoma individual de urgencia (riesgo relativo 2,1; intervalo de confianza del 95% 1,1-4,1).LIMITACIONES:Este estudio estuvo limitado por su diseño de estudio observacional retrospectivo.CONCLUSIONES:En el seguimiento a largo plazo, el síndrome de resección anterior baja mayor es común después de la resección anterior por cáncer de recto. La fuga anastomótica parece aumentar el riesgo de síndrome de resección anterior baja mayor, siendo la urgencia uno de los principales síntomas contribuyentes. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B868 . (Traducción-Dr. Juan Carlos Reyes ).

Comparison of pressure resistance of double-rows and triple-rows circular stapler in rectal double stapling technique: In vitro study

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic leak after gastrointestinal anastomosis is a serious complication. Anastomotic failure depends on various parameters. The aim of our study was to evaluate the pressure resistance of a new device, EEA™ circular stapler with Tri-Staple™ technology 28 mm Medium/Thick (Triple-rows circular stapler; TCS) compared with EEA™ circular stapler with DST series™ technology 28 mm, 4.8 mm staples (double-rows circular stapler; DCS).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed 30 anastomoses (DSC: 15, TCS: 15) of DST with porcine colon model in vitro. We performed following 3 comparative experiences; Experiment 1: observation of staple shape with a colonoscopy, Experiment 2: comparison of the pressure resistance, Experiment 3: comparison of leakage points.

RESULTS

There was no hypoplasia of staples and the shapes were well-formed by colonoscopy. The leakage pressure of DCS was 19.6 ± 4.4 mm Hg (mean ± standard deviation) and that of TCS was 38.6 ± 10.2 mm Hg (mean ± standard deviation). There was a significantly difference between 2 groups (P < .001). 12 cases of DCS (80%) and 10 cases of TCS (66.7%) had leakages from Circular stapler point. 2 cases of DCS (13.3%) and 5 cases of TCS (33.3%) had leakages from Crossing points. Only 1 case of DCS had leakages from Dog ear point (6.7%). There was no significantly difference in leakage site between 2 groups (P = .195).

CONCLUSIONS

TSC showed high pressure resistance during DST compared with that of DCS. It was suggested that TCS may contribute to the reduction of anastomotic leakage rate.

Quality of life meta-analysis following coloanal anastomosis versus abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer

AIM

In low rectal cancers without sphincter involvement a permanent stoma can be avoided without compromising oncological safety. Functional outcomes following coloanal anastomosis (CAA) compared to abdominoperineal excision (APR) may be significantly different. This study examines all available comparative quality of life (QoL) data for patients undergoing CAA versus APR for low rectal cancer.

METHODS

Published studies with comparative data on QoL outcomes following CAA versus APR for low rectal cancer were extracted from electronic databases. The study was registered with PROSPERO and adhered to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items in Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines. Data was combined using random-effects models.

RESULTS

Seven comparative series examined QoL in 527 patients. There was no difference in the numbers receiving neoadjuvant radiotherapy in the APR and CAA groups (OR: 1.19, 95% CI: 0.78-1.81, p = 0.43). CAA was associated with higher mean scores for physical functioning(std mean diff -7.08, 95% CI: -11.92 to -2.25, p = 0.004) and body image (std. mean diff 11.11, 95% CI: 6.04-16.18, p < 0.0001). Male sexual problems were significantly increased in patients who had undergone APR compared to CAA (std. mean diff -16.20, 95% CI: -25.76 to -6.64, p = 0.0009). Patients who had an APR reported more fatigue, dyspnoea and appetite loss. Those who had a CAA reported higher scores for both constipation and diarrhoea.

DISCUSSION

It is reasonable to offer a CAA to motivated patients where oncological outcomes will not be threatened. QoL outcomes appear to be superior when intestinal continuity is maintained, and permanent stoma avoided.

Anus-Preserving Surgery in Advanced Low-Lying Rectal Cancer: A Perspective on Oncological Safety of Intersphincteric Resection

The surgical management of low-lying rectal cancer, within 5 cm from the anal verge (AV), is challenging due to the possibility, or not, to preserve the anus with its sphincter muscles maintaining oncological safety. The standardization of total mesorectal excision, the adoption of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, the implementation of rectal magnetic resonance imaging, and the evolution of mechanical staplers have increased the rate of anus-preserving surgeries. Moreover, extensive anatomy and physiology studies have increased the understanding of the complexity of the deep pelvis. Intersphincteric resection (ISR) was introduced nearly three decades ago as the ultimate anus-preserving surgery. The definition and indication of ISR have changed over time. The adoption of the robotic platform provides excellent perioperative results with no differences in oncological outcomes. Pushing the boundaries of anus-preserving surgeries has risen doubts on oncological safety in order to preserve function. This review critically discusses the oncological safety of ISR by evaluating the anatomical characteristics of the deep pelvis, the clinical indications, the role of distal and circumferential resection margins, the role of the neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, the outcomes between surgical approaches (open, laparoscopic, and robotic), the comparison with abdominoperineal resection, the risk factors for oncological outcomes and local recurrence, the patterns of local recurrences after ISR, considerations on functional outcomes after ISR, and learning curve and surgical education on ISR.

A study on the clinical application of greater omental pedicle flap transplantation to correct anterior resection syndrome in patients with low rectal cancer

Introduction

Low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) is the most common complication after total mesorectal excision (TME) in patients with low rectal cancer and has been a challenge in colorectal surgery that severely impacts the quality of life of patients. This study aimed to introduce a revised surgical procedure which could effectively maintain rectal compliance and significantly improve LARS after the operation.

Methods

We performed mesorectal reconstruction after routine Dixon TME using greater omental pedicle flap transplantation in 11 patients with low rectal cancer (5 cases of preoperative neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, 5 cases of preoperative neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and 1 case of postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy), thereby simulating the initial anatomical structure of the mesorectum and significantly reducing the postoperative anterior resection syndrome. The lars precision syndrome assessment scale (LARSS) was used to access the LARS.

Results

At 12 weeks after the 11 patients recovered from the anal defecation function, the average score on the LARS questionnaire was 25.5 ± 1.5 (minor). The average time at which anal function began to recover was 6.2 ± 2.6 weeks after surgery. The recovery was rapid, as the rectal and anal function of all patients generally returned to normal levels within 12 weeks, and the quality of life was close to that before surgery.

Conclusion

Greater omental flap transplantation can significantly improve LARS after Dixon TME in patients with low rectal cancer.

•

Omental pedicle flap transplantation is a revised and promising surgical procedure.

•

The procedure reconstructing the mesorectum could maintain rectal compliance.

•

The procedure can significantly improve low anterior resection syndrome.

Functional outcome and quality of life following treatment for rectal cancer

Introduction Over the last decades, treatment for rectal cancer has substantially improved with development of new surgical options and treatment modalities. With the improvement of survival, functional outcome and quality of life are getting more attention.

Study objective To provide an overview of current modalities in rectal cancer treatment, with particular emphasis on functional outcomes and quality of life.

Results Functional outcomes after rectal cancer treatment are influenced by patient and tumor characteristics, surgical technique, the use of preoperative radiotherapy and the method and level of anastomosis. Sphincter preserving surgery for low rectal cancer often results in poor functional outcomes that impair quality of life, referred to as low anterior resection syndrome. Abdominoperineal resection imposes the need for a permanent stoma but avoids the risk of this syndrome. Contrary to general belief, long-term quality of life in patients with a permanent stoma is similar to those after sphincter preserving surgery for low rectal cancer.

Conclusion All patients should be informed about the risks of treatment modalities. Decision on rectal cancer treatment should be individualized since not all patients may benefit from a sphincter preserving surgery “at any price”. Non-resection treatment should be the future focus to avoid the need of a permanent stoma and bowel dysfunction.

Intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: the risk is functional rather than oncological. A 25-year experience from Bordeaux

AIM

There are few data evaluating the long-term outcomes of intersphincteric resection (ISR), especially the impact of inclusion of more juxtapositioned and intra-anal tumours on oncological and functional outcomes. We compared the oncological and functional results of patients treated by total mesorectal excision and ISR for low rectal cancer over a 25-year period.

METHOD

This is a retrospective study from a single institution evaluating results of ISR over three periods: 1990-1998, 1999-2006 and 2007-2014. Patients treated by partial or total ISR, with or without neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, for low rectal cancer (≤ 6 cm from the anal verge) were included. We compared postoperative morbidity, quality of surgery and oncological and functional outcomes in the time periods studied.

RESULTS

Of 813 patients operated on for low rectal cancer, 303 had ISR. Tumour stage did not differ; however, the distance of the tumour from the anorectal junction decreased from 1 to 0 cm (P < 0.001) and the distal resection margin shortened from 25 to 10 mm (P < 0.001) from 1990 to 2014. The postoperative morbidity and quality of surgery did not change significantly over time. The 5-year local recurrence (4.3% vs 5.9% vs 3.5%; P = 0.741) and disease-free survival (72% vs 71% vs 75%; P = 0.918) did not differ between the three time periods. Functional results improved during the last period; however, overall 42% of patients experienced major bowel dysfunction.

CONCLUSION

Pushing the envelope of sphincter-saving resection in ultra-low rectal cancer reaching or invading the anal sphincter did not compromise oncological and functional outcomes. The main limitation of the ISR procedure appears to be functional rather than oncological, suggesting that bowel rehabilitation programmes should be developed.

Low preoperative maximum squeezing pressure evaluated by anorectal manometry is a risk factor for non-reversal of diverting stoma

PURPOSE

A diverting stoma is created to prevent anastomotic leakage and related complications impairing sphincteric function in rectal surgery. However, diverting stoma may be left unclosed. This study is aimed to analyze preoperative factors including anorectal manometric data associated with diverting stoma non-reversal before rectal surgery. We also addressed complications related to diverting stoma in patients undergoing surgery for rectal malignant tumor.

METHODS

A total of 203 patients with rectal malignant tumor who underwent sphincter-preserving surgery with diverting stoma were retrospectively evaluated. The risk factors for non-reversal of diverting stoma were identified by univariate and multivariate analyses. For these analyses, anorectal manometric data were measured before rectal surgery. The association between stoma-related complications and other clinicopathological features was also analyzed.

RESULTS

During the median follow-up of 46.4 months, 24% (49 patients) did not undergo stoma reversal. Among parameters that were available before rectal surgery, age ≥ 75 years, albumin < 3.5 g/dl, tumor size ≥ 30 mm, tumor distance from the anal verge < 4 cm, and maximum squeezing pressure (MSP) < 130 mmHg measured by anorectal manometry (ARM) were independent factors associated with stoma non-reversal. The most common stoma-related complication was peristomal skin irritation (25%). Ileostomy was the only factor associated with peristomal skin irritation.

CONCLUSION

The current study demonstrated that low preoperative MSP evaluated by ARM, old age, hypoalbuminemia, and a large tumor close to the anus were predictive of diverting stoma non-reversal. Stoma site should be well deliberated when patients have the aforementioned risk factors for diverting stoma non-reversal.

Safety and Feasibility of Umbilical Diverting Loop Ileostomy for Patients with Rectal Tumor

BACKGROUND

Fashioning an ileostomy in the umbilicus and combining the trauma from extraction of colorectum with that from ileostomy should be less invasive and lead to improved cosmetic outcomes. However, there are only a few reports regarding umbilical ileostomy.

METHODS

We retrospectively collected data for 121 consecutive patients with rectal tumor who underwent elective laparoscopic rectal resection with diverting loop ileostomy between 2010 and 2015 at Osaka University Hospital, Japan. The safety and feasibility of umbilical diverting loop ileostomy and its influence on stoma care were investigated.

RESULTS

A total of 83 patients were included in this study; of these, 30 underwent umbilical diverting loop ileostomy and 53 underwent conventional diverting loop ileostomy, which was created in the right lower quadrant of the abdomen. The umbilical and conventional groups showed similar rates of postoperative and stoma-related complications (26.7 vs. 32.1%, p = 0.804 and 3.3 vs. 3.8%, p = 1.000, respectively). Level of parastomal dermatitis was evaluated by DET score at three time points (stoma self-management establishment, first outpatient review post-discharge, and just before stoma closure). DET scores at any time points did not differ significantly between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Umbilical diverting loop ileostomy is comparable to conventional ileostomy with regard to safety and feasibility. Our methods for umbilical ileostomy using the umbilical skin flap were less invasive and did not have a negative impact on stoma care and parastomal dermatitis. Umbilical ileostomy may be a promising alternative to conventional ileostomy in selected cases.

Quality of life and anterior resection syndrome after surgery for mid to low rectal cancer: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to analyze the quality of life (QoL), low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) and fecal incontinence after surgery for mid to low rectal cancer and its relationship with the type of surgical procedure performed.

METHODS

A cross-sectional cohort survey study of 358 patients operated on for mid to low rectal cancer. Patients were included in three groups: abdominoperineal resection (APR), low mechanical colorectal anastomosis (CRA) and hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis (CAA). The QLQ-C30/CR29 questionnaires, LARS and Vaizey scores were used to study QoL and defecatory dysfunction. Multivariable analysis was used to estimate the prognostic effect of the variables on QoL and LARS scores.

RESULTS

62.6% of the patients answered the survey. The global QoL score was similar among APR, CRA and CAA. Patients' body image perception was significantly worse after APR than after CRA or CAA. LARS score was better in CRA group (p = 0.002). A major LARS was observed in 83.3% of the patients who underwent CAA and in 56.6% of the patients who underwent CRA. No relationship between surgical procedures and the global QoL score was observed. Neoadjuvant radiotherapy (p = 0.048) and CAA (p = 0.005) were associated with a major LARS. The Vaizey score was higher for CAA than for CRA (p = 0.036).

CONCLUSIONS

Though CAA group presents worse LARS and higher faecal incontinence scores respect CRA patients, and APR is related with a worse body image, global QoL was similar in the three groups.

Survival and functional and oncological outcomes following intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: short-term results

Objective

This study was performed to evaluate the 1-year survival rate and functional outcomes of 20 patients who underwent intersphincteric resection (ISR) for low rectal cancer.

Methods

Twenty patients who underwent ISR for low rectal cancer were followed up for 1 year. Complications, functional outcomes objectified by the Wexner score, and oncological outcomes were assessed.

Results

The short-term survival rate was 100%. The median Wexner score was ≤10 in all patients at 12 months after surgery. Signs of local recurrence were absent, and antigen levels remained within the reference ranges 1 year postoperatively.

Conclusions

ISR is a feasible alternative in highly selected patients who primarily refuse a colostomy bag and present with type II or III tumors. In the present study, patient-reported continence was satisfactory, and the absence of a colostomy bag increased patients’ quality of life. The oncological outcomes were satisfactory at 1 year postoperatively.

Functional outcomes with handsewn versus stapled anastomoses in the treatment of ultralow rectal cancer

Adequate oncological outcomes have been demonstrated with rectal resection and handsewn coloanal anastomosis (CAA) in tumours in close proximity to the internal anal sphincter. Our aim was to assess functional differences between handsewn CAA and ultralow stapled anastomosis. Participants were identified from a single-surgeon series. Included participants underwent anorectal physiology testing of anal sphincter function, in addition to completion of several questionnaires: Wexner Incontinence Score (WIS); Birmingham Bowel, Bladder and Urinary Symptom Questionnaire (BBUSQ); Low Anterior Resection Syndrome (LARS) Score; SF36. Non-parametric data compared using the Mann–Whitney U test. 20 participants were included; 11 stapled and 9 handsewn. Mean follow-up was 2.95 ± 1.97 years. The mean LARS score was 21.9 ± 1.97 years in the stapled group versus 29.4 ± 9.57 in the handsewn group (p = 0.133). The Wexner incontinence score was significantly higher in the handsewn group (p = 0.0076), with a mean score of 4.6 ± 3.69 versus 10.9 ± 4.76. The incontinence domain of the BBUSQ was also significantly worse in patients with a handsewn anastomosis (p = 0.001). With the exception of general health (p = 0.035) and social functioning (p = 0.035), which were worse in the handsewn groups, the other six domains of the SF-36 showed no statistical difference between groups. Anorectal physiology scores were not significantly different. Handsewn CAA anastomosis is known to be safe and oncologically feasible. Patient selection should be vigorous, with preoperative counseling regarding the likelihood of incontinence to manage patients’ expectations and promote comparable quality of life in the long-term.

Intersphincteric Resection Pushing the Envelope for Sphincter Preservation

During the last 15 years, a significant evolution has emerged in the surgical treatment of rectal cancer and restoration of bowel continuity has been one of the main goals. For many years the treatment of distal rectal cancer would necessarily require an abdominoperineal resection and end colostomy. The surgical procedure of intersphincteric resection has been proposed to offer sphincter preservation in patients with low rectal cancer and has been legitimized if executed according to adequate oncologic criteria. This article will discuss the best indications, technical aspects, functional, and oncological outcomes of intersphicteric resection in the management of rectal cancer.

Peri-treatment change of anorectal function in patients with rectal cancer after preoperative chemoradiotherapy

Preoperative chemoradiotherapy (PCRT) is a standard treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer. The influence of PCRT on anorectal function has not been objectively assessed. We evaluated the short-term influence of PCRT on anorectal function in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer using anorectal manometry. We included 310 patients with locally advanced mid and lower rectal cancer who underwent PCRT from 2012 to 2015. We compared anorectal function based on anorectal manometry between before and after PCRT according to tumor location, clinical T (cT) stage, and tumor response after PCRT. Lower rectal cancer was common in the cohort of 310 patients (n = 228, 73.5%). Sphincter length (p = 0.003) and maximal resting pressure (p < 0.001) increased and maximal tolerated volume (p = 0.036) decreased after PCRT regardless of tumor location. Maximal squeezing pressure and rectal compliance slightly decreased, without statistical significance. Changes in manometric parameters after PCRT were not associated with changes of cT stage after PCRT. However, minimal sensory volume (p = 0.042) and maximal tolerated volume (p = 0.025) increased significantly in 143 patients (46.1%) with changes in the distance of the cancer from the anal verge after PCRT. PCRT did not impair the overall short-term anorectal manometric parameters in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. Further study is required to investigate postoperative anorectal function after sphincter-preserving surgery to evaluate the long-term effects of PCRT on anorectal function.

Anorectal functional outcome following laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer

Low anterior resection (LAR) with total mesorectal excision has been considered a standard treatment for patients with rectal cancer. However, the functional outcome and life quality of laparoscopic LAR (LLAR) in Chinese patients remain unclear. A cohort of 51 Chinese patients (22 men and 29 women) who had undergone LLAR was included in this study. Anorectal manometry combined with the Wexner scores questionnaire were applied to assess functional outcome preoperatively (1 week) and postoperatively (at 3, 6 and 9 months). The validated Chinese versions of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and QLQ-CR38 questionnaires were also used to assess the patients' quality of life at the indicated time points. The results demonstrated that the manometric parameters exhibited a temporary decrease at 3 months postoperatively, but a gradual increase at 6 and 9 months, while the Wexner scores exhibited an opposite trend. Furthermore, patients with high anastomoses had significantly higher manometric parameters, a lower frequency of incontinence and lower Wexner scores compared with those with low anastomoses at 9 months (all P<0.05). For the entire cohort, quality of life at 3 months postoperatively was worse compared with the preoperative level, but returned to normal by 9 months. Patients with high anastomoses exhibited significantly better role, emotional and social function, had a better body image and sexual function, fewer problems with defecation and lower frequency of diarrhea, as well as fewer chemotherapy-related side effects at 6 months postoperatively when compared with the low anastomosis group (all P<0.05). In conclusion, LLAR is generally acceptable for Chinese patients with rectal cancer, particularly for those with middle or high rectal cancer, in terms of functional outcome and quality of life.

Quality of Life and Functional Outcome After Transanal Abdominal Transanal Proctectomy for Low Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Transanal abdominal transanal proctectomy is a sphincter-preserving procedure designed to avoid colostomy in patients with cancer in the distal third of the rectum. Oncologic outcomes of this procedure have been established. However, data regarding patient satisfaction and quality of life are scant.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the quality of life and functional outcomes of patients after transanal abdominal transanal proctectomy.

DESIGN

This is a cross-sectional study.

SETTINGS

The study was conducted at a tertiary referral colorectal center.

PATIENTS

Patients who underwent transanal abdominal transanal proctectomy were included and surveyed using the Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life Scale, the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30, the Quality of Life Questionnaire CR38 module, and a questionnaire designed by the authors to assess satisfaction with quality of life.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Quality of life, functional outcomes, and patient satisfaction were measured and compared by age, tumor level, and stage of the disease.

RESULTS

A total of 133 surveys were mailed, and 90 patients responded and were included in the study. Patient quality of life was not significantly different after surgery. Patients with more proximal tumors had better lifestyle, physical, and emotional scores. Older patients performed better on multiple levels, including coping, emotional, body image, future perspective, and digestive. Stage of disease had no impact on quality of life. Compared with reference values, patients who underwent transanal abdominal transanal proctectomy performed better on most of the components. All of patients preferred transanal abdominal transanal proctectomy over having a stoma based on their current anal sphincter function, and >97% of patients preferred transanal abdominal transanal proctectomy based on their current quality of life, sexual function, and level of activities.

LIMITATIONS

This study is limited by the lack of a comparison group and a potential selection bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Satisfaction with quality of life and functional outcomes is high after transanal abdominal transanal proctectomy. Older patients and those with more proximal tumors performed better. This patient population clearly preferred a sphincter-preserving option for treatment of their rectal cancer.

Quality of life in rectal cancer surgery: What do the patient ask?

Rectal cancer surgery has dramatically changed with the introduction of the total mesorectal excision (TME), which has demonstrated to significantly reduce the risk of local recurrence. The combination of TME with radiochemotherapy has led to a reduction of local failure to less than 5%. On the other hand, surgery for rectal cancer is also impaired by the potential for a significant loss in quality of life. This is a new challenge surgeons should think about nowadays: If patients live more, they also want to live better. The fight against cancer cannot only be based on survival, recurrence rate and other oncological endpoints. Patients are also asking for a decent quality of life. Rectal cancer is probably a paradigmatic example: Its treatment is often associated with the loss or severe impairment of faecal function, alteration of body anatomy, urogenital problems and, sometimes, intractable pain. The evolution of laparoscopic colorectal surgery in the last decades is an important example, which emphasizes the importance that themes like scar, recovery, pain and quality of life might play for patients. The attention to quality of life from both patients and surgeons led to several surgical innovations in the treatment of rectal cancer: Sphincter saving procedures, reservoir techniques (pouch and coloplasty) to mitigate postoperative faecal disorders, nerve-sparing techniques to reduce the risk for sexual dysfunction. Even more conservative procedures have been proposed alternatively to the abdominal-perineal resection, like the local excisions or transanal endoscopic microsurgery, till the possibility of a wait and see approach in selected cases after radiation therapy.

Long-term effects of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by sphincter-preserving resection on anal sphincter function in relation to quality of life among locally advanced rectal cancer patients: a cross-sectional analysis

BACKGROUND

There is growing recognition for the consequences of rectal cancer treatment to maintain an adequate functional sphincter in the long-term rather than preserving the anal sphincter itself. This study aims to evaluate long-term effects of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) followed by sphincter-preserving resection on anal sphincter function in relation to quality of life (QoL) among locally advanced rectal cancer patients.

METHODS

Twenty-nine patients treated with nCRT followed by low anterior resection surgery were included in this study. Data on patient demographics, tumor location and symptoms of urgency and fecal soiling were recorded and evaluated with respect to Wexner Fecal Incontinence Scoring Scale, European Organization for Research and Cancer (EORTC) cancer-specific (EORTC QLQ-C30) and colorectal cancer-specific (EORTC QLQ-CR38) questionnaires and anorectal manometrical findings. Correlation of manometrical findings with Wexner Scale, EORTC QLQ-CR38 scores and EORTC QLQ-C30 scores was also evaluated.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 45.6 months (ranged 7.5-98 months. Higher scores for incontinence for gas (p = 0.001), liquid (p = 0.048) and solid (p = 0.019) stool, need to wear pad (p = 0.001) and alteration in life style (p = 0.004) in Wexner scale, while lower scores for future perspective (p = 0.010) and higher scores for defecation problems (p = 0.001) in EORTC QLQ-CR38 were noted in patients with than without urgency. Manometrical findings of resting pressure (mmHg) was positively correlated with body image (r = 0.435, p = 0.030) and sexual functioning (r = 0.479, p = 0.011) items of functional scale, while rectal sensory threshold (RST) volume (mL) was positively correlated with defecation problems (r = 0.424, p = 0.031) items of symptom scale in EORTC QLQ-CR38 and negatively correlated with social function domain (r = -0.479, p = 0.024) in EORTC QLQ-C30. RST volume was also positively correlated with Wexner scores including incontinence for liquid stool (r = 0.459, p = 0.024), need to wear pad (r = 0.466, p = 0.022) and alteration in lifestyle (r = 0.425, p = 0.038).

CONCLUSION

The high risk of developing functional anal impairment as well as the systematic registration of not only oncological but also functional and QoL related outcomes seem important in rectal cancer patients in the long-term disease follow-up.

Improvement of fecal incontinence and quality of life by electrical stimulation and biofeedback for patients with low rectal cancer after intersphincteric resection

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and benefits of pelvic rehabilitation programs in terms of functional outcomes and quality of life for patients with fecal incontinence and defecation disorders after rectal cancer surgery.

DESIGN

Prospective, observational study.

SETTING

University hospital physiotherapy clinics.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients (N=32) who experienced fecal incontinence after sphincter-saving surgery with the intersphincteric resection (ISR) technique and could follow and cooperate with the treatment schedule were included in the present study.

INTERVENTIONS

Pelvic rehabilitation programs included electrical stimulation (ES) and biofeedback (BF).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Functional results, Wexner score, and anorectal manometry were used to assess the clinical outcomes of rehabilitation treatment.

RESULTS

Maximum squeeze pressure improved after rehabilitation training (P=.014). There were no statistical differences in resting pressure, resting muscle electromyography, and maximum squeeze electromyography (P=.061, P=.76, and P=.99, respectively). The mean stool frequency was 18.8 per 24 hours before the pelvic intervention program and 7.8 per 24 hours after ES and BF training (P<.001). Of the 32 patients, 27 required antidiarrheal medications before treatment, and after completion of the training, only 9 patients still needed antidiarrheal medications (P<.001). Significant improvements were observed in the Wexner score (17.74 vs 12.93; P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data show that ES and BF are effective in the treatment of fecal incontinence, leading to improvement of quality of life for patients with low rectal cancer after ISR.

Effects of 12 weeks of probiotic supplementation on quality of life in colorectal cancer survivors: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Probiotics may help resolve bowel symptoms and improve quality of life. We investigated the effects of 12 weeks of probiotics administration in colorectal cancer patients.

METHODS

We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. The participants took probiotics (Lacidofil) or placebo twice a day for 12 weeks. The cancer-related quality of life (FACT), patient's health-9 (PHQ-9), and bowel symptom questionnaires were completed by each participant.

RESULTS

We obtained data for 32 participants in the placebo group and 28 participants in the probiotics group. The mean ages of total participants were 56.18 ± .86 years and 58.3% were male. Administration of probiotics significantly decreased the proportion of patients suffering from irritable bowel symptoms (0 week vs. 12 week; 67.9% vs. 45.7%, p=0.03), improved colorectal cancer-related FACT (baseline vs. 12 weeks: 19.79 ± 4.66 vs. 21.18 ± 3.67, p=0.04) and fatigue-related FACT (baseline vs. 12 weeks: 43.00 (36.50-45.50) vs. 44.50 (38.50-49.00), p=0.02) and PHQ-9 scores (0 weeks vs. 12 weeks; 3.00 (0-8.00) vs. 1.00 (0-3.00), p=0.01). We found significant differences in changes of the proportion of patients with bowel symptoms (p<0.05), functional well-being scores (p=0.04) and cancer-related FACT scores (p=0.04) between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Probiotics improved bowel symptoms and quality of life in colorectal cancer survivors.

Is it safe the reversal of a diverting stoma during adjuvant chemotherapy in elderly rectal cancer patients?

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical outcomes between 2 groups of elderly rectal cancer patients according to the time duration after which their diverting stoma can be reversed.

METHODS

We recruited 124 patients who were ≥65 years old and had undergone diverting stoma after rectal cancer surgery. In Group 1, the reversal of the stoma was predominantly performed after the sixth adjuvant chemotherapy. In Group 2, the reversal was predominantly performed after the third adjuvant chemotherapy.

RESULTS

The mean duration for which patients had a stoma was 28.6 ± 9.9 weeks in Group 1 and 17.1 ± 7.4 weeks in Group 2. The interval between stoma formation and stoma formation-related complications was slightly longer in Group 1 than in Group 2 (13.5 ± 9.7 vs. 8.0 ± 4.9 weeks, p = 0.075). There were 16 stoma-related complications in Group 1 (23.2%) and 10 in Group 2 (18.2%) (p = 0.516). There were 6 stoma closure-related complications in Group 1 (8.8%) and 6 in Group 2 (10.9%) (p = 0.766).

DISCUSSION

This study shows that stoma closure during adjuvant chemotherapy is no more harmful than stoma closure after termination of adjuvant chemotherapy.

CONCLUSION

It may be possible to limit the duration of diverting stoma following rectal cancer surgery, even if patients are elderly and undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy.

Risk factors for bowel dysfunction after sphincter-preserving rectal cancer surgery: a prospective study using the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center bowel function instrument

BACKGROUND

Until recently, no studies have prospectively evaluated bowel function after sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer with the use of a validated bowel function scoring system.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate possible risk factors for altered bowel function after sphincter-preserving surgery.

DESIGN

This was a prospective study.

SETTINGS

The study was conducted between January 2006 and May 2012 at the authors' institution.

PATIENTS

Patients who underwent sphincter-preserving rectal cancer surgery were recruited.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Bowel function was assessed 1 day before (baseline) and at 1 year after sphincter-preserving surgery or temporary ileostomy takedown with the use of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center questionnaire. Multivariable analysis was performed to identify the factors associated with altered bowel function after surgery.

RESULTS

Overall, 266 patients were eligible for the analysis. The tumor was located in the upper, middle, and lower rectum in 68 (25.5%), 113 (42.5%), and 85 (32.0%) patients. Intersphincteric resection and temporary ileostomy were performed in 18 (6.8%) and 129 (48.5%) patients. The mean Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center score was 64.5 ± 7.6 at 1 year after sphincter-preserving surgery or temporary ileostomy takedown. The Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center score decreased in 163/266 patients (61.3%) between baseline and 1 year after surgery. Tumor location (p = 0.01), operative method (p = 0.03), anastomotic type (p = 0.01), and temporary ileostomy (p = 0.01) were associated with altered bowel function after sphincter-preserving surgery in univariate analyses. In multivariable analysis, only tumor location was independently associated with impaired bowel function after sphincter-preserving rectal cancer surgery.

LIMITATIONS

This study was limited by its nonrandomized design and the lack of measurement before preoperative chemoradiotherapy.

CONCLUSION

We suggest that preoperative counseling should be implemented to inform patients of the risk of bowel dysfunction, especially in patients with lower rectal cancer, although this study cannot exclude the effect of chemoradiotherapy owing to the limitation of study.

What Are the Best Questionnaires To Capture Anorectal Function After Surgery in Rectal Cancer?

With enhanced surgical techniques and neoadjuvant therapy in rectal cancer, survivorship issues are at the forefront of clinical practice and research. More and more patients are living with altered bowel habits following rectal cancer surgery. Sound assessment of anorectal function after rectal cancer surgery is the foundation for the continuing effort to explore the adverse effects of such surgery on bowel function, as well as for working towards reducing these effects. The quality of the assessment is predominantly determined by the instrument administered. This article reviews various questionnaires for capturing anorectal function after surgery in rectal cancer, discussing their attributes and suitability for different evaluation contexts.

Bowel dysfunction after rectal cancer treatment: a study comparing the specialist's versus patient's perspective

OBJECTIVES

To investigate how bowel dysfunction after sphincter-preserving rectal cancer treatment, known as low anterior resection syndrome (LARS), is perceived by rectal cancer specialists, in relation to the patient's experience.

DESIGN

Questionnaire study.

SETTING

International.

PARTICIPANTS

58 rectal cancer specialists (45 colorectal surgeons and 13 radiation oncologists).

RESEARCH PROCEDURE

The Low Anterior Resection Syndrome Score (LARS score) is a five-item instrument for evaluation of LARS, which was developed from and validated on 961 patients. The 58 specialists individually completed two LARS score-based exercises. In Exercise 1, they were asked to select, from a list of bowel dysfunction issues, five items that they considered to disturb patients the most. In Exercise 2, they were given a list of scores to assign to the LARS score items, according to the impact on quality of life (QOL).

OUTCOME MEASURES

In Exercise 1, the frequency of selection of each issue, particularly the five items included in the LARS score, was compared with the frequency of being selected at random. In Exercise 2, the answers were compared with the original patient-derived scores.

RESULTS

Four of the five LARS score issues had the highest frequencies of selection (urgency, clustering, incontinence for liquid stool and frequency of bowel movements), which were also higher than random. However, the remaining LARS score issue (incontinence for flatus) showed a lower frequency than random. Scores assigned by the specialists were significantly different from the patient-derived scores (p<0.01). The specialists grossly overestimated the impact of incontinence for liquid stool and frequent bowel movements on QOL, while they markedly underestimated the impact of clustering and urgency. The results did not differ between surgeons and oncologists.

CONCLUSIONS

Rectal cancer specialists do not have a thorough understanding of which bowel dysfunction symptoms truly matter to the patient, nor how these symptoms affect QOL.

Comparison of fecal continence and quality of life between intersphincteric resection and abdominoperineal resection plus perineal colostomy for ultra-low rectal cancer

AIMS

The only two procedures for surgical treatment of ultra-low rectal cancer without a permanent abdominal stoma are the intersphincteric resection (ISR) and the abdominoperineal resection (APR) plus a perineal pseudocontinent colostomy (PCC). This study compared functional results and quality of life following these two techniques.

METHODS

Between January 1995 and December 2011, 36 patients had undergone an ISR (n = 14) or a PPC (n = 22) for very low rectal cancer. The Cleveland Clinica Florida (Wexner) fecal incontinence questionnaire and the EORTC Quality of Life questionnaire QLQ-C30 and CR38 had been administered.

RESULTS

There were no differences in gender, age, the interval between surgery and questionnaire responses, preoperative TNM staging, perioperative treatment, the laparoscopic approach and circumferential margin involvement rate between the groups. The ISR and PPC led to no difference in quality of life (Qol) and continence with a median Wexner score of respectively 11 and 10 (P = 0.403) and a fecal incontinence rate of 58.2% and 41% (P = 0.221). The incontinent patients had experienced worse social functioning and tended to have worse overall health. The patients who had undergone ISR had more defecation problems and evacuation difficulties.

CONCLUSION

Qol and continence are similar between ISR and PPC.

Review of bowel dysfunction of rectal cancer patients during the first five years after sphincter-preserving surgery: a population in need of nursing attention

PURPOSE

The aim of the review was to summarize the longitudinal changes in bowel dysfunction among patients with rectal cancer within the first five years following sphincter-preserving resection.

METHODS

A series of literature searches were conducted on six English-language electronic databases. Articles published after 1990 were searched. A total of 29 articles (reporting 27 studies) was found.

RESULTS

Bowel dysfunction, including an alteration in the frequency of bowel movements, incontinence, abnormal sensations, and difficulties with evacuation, is reported among patients with rectal cancer within the first five years after sphincter-preserving resection. These problems are most frequent and severe within the first year, especially within the first six months, and stabilize after one year. Some of the problems may last for years.

CONCLUSION

Supportive care for bowel dysfunction is needed, and should include the provision of information and psychological support delivered in multiple steps. Oncology nurses can play an important role in providing supportive care for rectal cancer patients with bowel dysfunction.

Intersphincteric resection for very low rectal cancer: clinical outcomes of open versus laparoscopic approach and multidimensional analysis of the learning curve for laparoscopic surgery

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery is regarded as more complex because of its technical difficulties in pelvic exposure, dissection, and sphincter preservation. This study therefore aimed to investigate the feasibility of laparoscopic resection for low rectal cancer using intersphincteric resection (ISR) and to assess its short-term oncological outcomes. Further, we intended to analyze the learning curve for laparoscopic surgery and identify the factors influencing the learning curve.

METHODS

Patients with low rectal cancer who received open or laparoscopic ISR were retrospectively chart reviewed. The surgical and oncological outcomes were evaluated. Comparisons of operating time, estimated blood loss, surgical outcomes, and histopathologic status were analyzed. Also, operating time was used as a technical indicator for learning curve analysis.

RESULTS

The mean estimated blood loss was 265 mL (range, 100-800 mL) in the open group and 104 mL (range, 30-250 mL) in the laparoscopic group. There was a significant difference between these two groups (P < 0.001). Operative experience analysis showed that the mean operating time was 402.1 min (range, 210-570 min) in the first stage and 331.4 min (range, 210-450 min) in the second stage, and on pathologic examination the mean number of lymph nodes harvested was 11.1 (range, 5-21) in the first stage and 18.3 (range, 11-31) in the second stage, with statistical differences between these two stages (P = 0.034 and P = 0.004, respectively). Multifactorial analysis showed that operating time was associated with surgeons' experience (<18 or ≥18 cases) (odds ratio = 2.918, 95% CI 1.078-7.902). Protective stoma creation was also associated with surgeons' experience (odds ratio = 3.999, 95% CI 1.153-13.86).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data show that laparoscopic ISR for low rectal cancer is feasible and safe. Surgeons' experience improved operating time and postoperative complications.

Anorectal function after partial intersphincteric resection in ultra-low rectal cancer

AIM

To investigate the feasibility and efficacy of intersphincteric resection (ISR), in terms of postoperative anorectal function, for ultra-low rectal cancer in mainland China.

METHOD

A total of 43 patients who consecutively underwent curative partial ISR for ultra-low rectal cancer between 2006 and 2009 were enrolled in the study. Defaecatory function was assessed, using detailed questionnaires, 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery. The Wexner score was used to assess faecal continence, and anal manometry studies were performed to analyse anal sphincter function.

RESULTS

Overall defaecatory function was assessed as being satisfactory in 41 of 43 patients. Twelve months after surgery, the mean Wexner score was 4.0 ± 3.6. Anal manometry studies showed a significant change at 3 months and further, gradual, improvement over the following year. During the postoperative period, maximum squeeze pressure reached a normal value of 174.1 ± 19.5 mmHg (P = 0.041) by 6 months and resting pressure was 42.4 ± 5.6 mmHg by 12 months, which was close to the preoperative level (P = 0.038).

CONCLUSION

Because of the satisfactory recovery of defaecatory function and good oncological results, partial ISR may be recommended as an effective sphincter-preserving operation for patients with ultra-low rectal cancer.

Low anterior resection syndrome score: development and validation of a symptom-based scoring system for bowel dysfunction after low anterior resection for rectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to develop and validate a scoring system for bowel dysfunction after low anterior resection (LAR) for rectal cancer, on the basis of symptoms and impact on quality of life (QoL).

BACKGROUND

LAR for rectal cancer often results in severe bowel dysfunction (LAR syndrome [LARS]) with incontinence, urgency, and frequent bowel movements. Several studies have investigated functional outcome, but the terminology is inconsistent hereby complicating comparison of results.

METHODS

Questionnaires regarding bowel function was sent to all 1143 LAR patients eligible for inclusion identified in the national Colorectal Cancer Database. Associations between items and QoL were computed by binomial regression analyses. The important items were selected and regression analysis was performed to find the adjusted risk ratios. Individual score values were designated items to form the LARS score, which was divided into "no LARS," "minor LARS," and "major LARS." Validity was tested by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and Spearman's rank correlation and discriminant validity was tested by Student t tests.

RESULTS

A total of 961 patients returned completed questionnaires. The 5 most important items were "incontinence for flatus," "incontinence for liquid stools," "frequency," "clustering," and "urgency." The range (0-42) was divided into 0 to 20 (no LARS), 21 to 29 (minor LARS), and 30 to 42 (major LARS). The score showed good correlation and a high sensitivity (72.54%) and specificity (82.52%) for major LARS. Discriminant validity showed significant differences between groups with and without radiotherapy (P < 0.0001), tumor height more or less than 5 cm (P < 0.0001), and total mesorectal excision/partial mesorectal excision (P = 0.0163).

CONCLUSIONS

We have constructed a valid and reliable LARS score correlated to QoL--a simple tool for quick clinical evaluation of the severity of LARS.

External coloanal anastomosis without covering stoma in low-lying rectal cancer

The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and functional outcome of external coloanal anastomosis without covering stoma in treating low-lying rectal cancer. All patients undergoing the coloanal anastomosis for low lying rectal carcer in the Department of General Surgery, Minia University Hospital, between May 2006 and May 2009 were included. Seventy two patients underwent coloanal anastomosis, and follow up was available for all patients. Mean follow up period was 12.6 ± 4.7 months. Postoperatively, fecal continence was normal in 84.7% of patients. Postoperative complications included anastomotic fistula in 3 patients (4.2%) and anastomotic stenosis in 6 patients (8.3%). There was no effect of pre or postoperative adjuvant therapy on the procedure outcome. There was no local recurrence during follow up period. Three patients died at the end of follow up period due to distant metastasis. In treatment of low-lying rectal cancer, abdominoperineal resection should be avoided if coloanal anastomosis provides similar control of the disease as it is safe and has good functional results and acceptable complication rate.

Systematic review of outcomes after intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

For a select group of patients proctectomy with intersphincteric resection (ISR) for low rectal cancer may be a viable alternative to abdominoperineal resection, with good oncological outcomes while preserving sphincter function. The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the current evidence regarding oncological outcomes, morbidity and mortality, and functional outcomes after ISR for low rectal cancer.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was undertaken to evaluate evidence regarding oncological outcomes, morbidity and mortality after ISR for low rectal cancer. Three major databases (PubMed, MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library) were searched. The review included all original articles reporting outcomes after ISR, published in English, from January 1950 to March 2011.

RESULTS

Eighty-four studies were identified. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 14 studies involving 1289 patients were included (mean age 59.5 years, 67.0 per cent men). R0 resection was achieved by ISR in 97.0 per cent. The operative mortality rate was 0.8 per cent and the cumulative morbidity rate 25.8 per cent. Median follow-up was 56 (range 1-227) months. The mean local recurrence rate was 6.7 (range 0-23) per cent. Mean 5-year overall and disease-free survival rates were 86.3 and 78.6 per cent respectively. Functional outcome was reported in eight studies; among these, the mean number of bowel motions in a 24-h period was 2.7.

CONCLUSION

Oncological outcomes after ISR for low rectal cancer are acceptable, with diverse, often imperfect functional results. These data will aid the clinician when counselling patients considering an ISR for management of low rectal cancer.

How low is low? Evolving approaches to sphincter-sparing resection techniques

Although advances in rectal cancer staging may ultimately be accurate enough to reliably exclude disease outside the rectal wall (thereby allowing local approaches to be more widely and safely applied) and advances in the use of neoadjuvant chemo- and radiation therapy may ultimately produce more "complete responders" that can be accurately identified and spared surgery altogether, as it stands, radical resection forms the basis of curative treatment for rectal cancer. However, the concepts that guide the surgeon in choosing the optimal approach in radical resection are changing. In the past, the decision as to how to proceed surgically with radical resection was based primarily on the level of the tumor above the anal verge or anorectal ring. The issue was primarily "How low is the tumor?" and "Is the distal margin safe?" A more modern approach focuses attention on achieving a negative circumferential margin despite what historically may seem to be a very minimal distal margin, the current issue is not "How low is the tumor?" so much as it is "How deep does the tumor go?". This shift in focus has been a major impetus in the evolution of sphincter sparing resection techniques.

Risk factors for fecal incontinence after intersphincteric resection for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Restoration of bowel continuity is a major goal after surgical treatment of rectal cancer. Intersphincteric resection allows sphincter preservation in low rectal cancer but may have poor functional results, including frequent bowel movements, urgency, and incontinence.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate long-term functional outcome after intersphincteric resection to identify factors predictive of good continence.

DESIGN

Descriptive observational study.

SETTING

Follow-up of surgery in tertiary care university hospital.

PATIENTS

Eligible patients were without recurrence 1 year or more after surgery for low rectal cancer.

INTERVENTION

Intersphincteric resection.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

: Bowel function was assessed with a standardized questionnaire sent to patients. Functional outcome was considered as good if the Wexner score was 10 or less. Univariable and multivariable regression analyses were used to evaluate impact of age, gender, body mass index, tumor stage, tumor location, distance of the tumor from the anal verge and from the anal ring, type of surgery, colonic pouch, height of the anastomosis, pelvic sepsis, and preoperative radiotherapy on functional outcome.

RESULTS

Of 125 eligible patients, 101 responded to the questionnaire. Median follow-up was 51 (range, 13-167) months. In multivariate analyses, the only independent predictors of good continence were distance of the tumor greater than 1 cm from the anal ring (OR, 5.88; 95% CI, 1.75-19.80; P = .004) and anastomoses higher than 2 cm above the anal verge (OR, 6.59; 95% CI, 1.12-38.67; P = .037).

LIMITATIONS

The study is limited by its retrospective, observational design and potential bias due to possible differences between those who responded to the questionnaire and those who did not.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient characteristics do not appear to influence functional outcome at long-term follow-up after intersphincteric resection. The risk of fecal incontinence depends mainly on tumor level and height of the anastomosis.

Quality of life after surgery for rectal cancer with special reference to pelvic floor dysfunction

AIM

Conventional outcomes such as survival, tumour recurrence and complication rates after surgery for rectal cancer have been rigorously assessed, but the importance of maintaining quality of life (QOL) after surgery for rectal cancer has received less attention. The aim of the current study was to analyse QOL and the occurrence of pelvic dysfunction after the surgical treatment of rectal cancer.

METHOD

Between May 2005 and May 2008, 150 patients with rectal cancer underwent abdominoperineal resection (APR) or anterior resection (AR). Seventy-four answered two preoperative questionnaires. At a follow up of 1 year, 65 were alive without sign of recurrence and answered the same questionnaires: (a) validated RAND 36-item health survey QOL questionnaire; and (b) self-administered disease-related questionnaire with special reference to anorectal and urogenital function.

RESULTS

The postoperative general QOL was similar after surgery, and mental functioning was better (P < 0.001). Problems with physical functions were associated with anal dysfunction after AR (P < 0.001) and problems with social functioning were associated with urinary dysfunction (P = 0.038). At 1 year after surgery, urinary incontinence was worse (P = 0.026) after all operations, and the incidence of dysuria was higher after APR than AR (P = 0.001). Male sexual function also worsened (P = 0.060). Anorectal dysfunction caused more inconvenience among patients who underwent AR (P = 0.028). Preoperative radiation was associated with postoperative ejaculation problems (P = 0.028) and anal incontinence (P = 0.012).

CONCLUSION

Factors affecting QOL and pelvic floor function should be taken into account when making treatment decisions in rectal cancer.

Sphincter preservation for distal rectal cancer - a goal worth achieving at all costs?

To assess the merits of currently available treatment options in the management of patients with low rectal cancer, a review of the medical literature pertaining to the operative and non-operative management of low rectal cancer was performed, with particular emphasis on sphincter preservation, oncological outcome, functional outcome, morbidity, quality of life, and patient preference. Low anterior resection (AR) is technically feasible in an increasing proportion of patients with low rectal cancer. The cost of sphincter preservation is the risk of morbidity and poor functional outcome in a significant proportion of patients. Transanal and endoscopic surgery are attractive options in selected patients that can provide satisfactory oncological outcomes while avoiding the morbidity and functional sequelae of open total mesorectal excision. In complete responders to neo-adjuvant chemoradiotherapy, a non-operative approach may prove to be an option. Abdominoperineal excision (APE) imposes a permanent stoma and is associated with significant incidence of perineal morbidity but avoids the risk of poor functional outcome following AR. Quality of life following AR and APE is comparable. Given the choice, most patients will choose AR over APE, however patients following APE positively appraise this option. In striving toward sphincter preservation the challenge is not only to achieve the best possible oncological outcome, but also to ensure that patients with low rectal cancer have realistic and accurate expectations of their treatment choice so that the best possible overall outcome can be obtained by each individual.

Perineal colostomy with spiral smooth muscle graft for neosphincter reconstruction following abdominoperineal resection of very low rectal cancer: long-term outcome

BACKGROUND

To avoid abdominal colostomy and improve quality of life, several types of anorectal reconstruction following abdominoperineal resection have been proposed. The aim of this study was to assess functional results and the quality of life of patients with very low rectal cancer after abdominoperineal resection and neosphincter reconstruction by perineal colostomy with a colonic muscular cuff.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Twenty-seven patients who had undergone neosphincter reconstruction with a perineal spiral cuff plasty after abdominoperineal resection were included in a retrospective study to evaluate long-term outcome. The functional results were analyzed using anal manometry and the continence score. The quality of life was measured with the global and disease-specific questionnaires European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and C38.

RESULTS

Median follow-up time was 105 months (range, 18-185 mo). The median Holschneider continence score of the study sample was 13 (continent), with a range of 10 (partially continent) to 16 (continent), thus demonstrating satisfactory functional results. The functional assessment was completed by neosphincter manometry which revealed a median resting vs compression pressure of 40 vs 96 cmH2O with a range of 5 to 81 cmH2O vs 49 to 364 cmH2O. The quality-of-life analyses showed an above-average score for both global health and disease-specific status.

CONCLUSION

Spiral cuff colostomy with reconstruction after abdominoperineal resection of very low distal rectal cancer offers a surgical option for a selective group of patients with reasonable functional long-term results and an improved quality of life.

Sphincter-sparing resection for rectal cancer

Although there is still a place for abdominoperineal resection in the treatment of rectal cancer, the state of the art is sphincter-preserving resection. Even for the lowest of rectal cancers, using a combination of neoadjuvant chemo/radiation, total mesorectal excision, and intersphincteric proctectomy and colonic J-pouch to anal anastomosis, sphincter preservation can be achieved for most patients. The key concept in pushing sphincter preservation forward has been the realization that the deep, circumferential, or lateral margin is all-important. Unless the rectal tumor involves the external sphincter muscle, there is no oncologic need to remove it, and following resection of the tumor, gastrointestinal tract continuity can be restored.

The short-term effect of neoadjuvant chemoradiation on anorectal function in low and midrectal cancer: analysis using preoperative manometric data

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the short-term preoperative effects of neoadjuvant chemoradiation on anorectal function, excluding the bias of postoperative impairment.

METHODS

We analyzed 80 patients on whom preoperative anorectal manometry data were available for both prechemoradiation and postchemoradiation. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to the tumor location; lower rectum (n = 52) and mid rectum (n = 28). The paired t test was used to compare prechemoradiation and postchemoradiation parameters including the mean resting pressure, maximum squeeze pressure, percentage asymmetry of the resting and squeeze sphincter, length of the high-pressure zone, rectal sensory threshold, and rectal compliance.

RESULTS

In patients with a lower rectal cancer, there were significant differences in the percentage asymmetry of the squeeze sphincter (27.81 +/- 6.46 vs 25.38 +/- 5.93%, P < .01), length of the high-pressure zone (2.14 +/- 0.74 vs 2.33 +/- 0.72 cm, P = .05), and rectal compliance (1.14 +/- 0.41 vs 1.02 +/- 0.40 mL/mmHg, P = .04). In patients with midrectal cancer, only the mean resting pressure increased significantly (45.08 +/- 18.57 vs 52.83 +/- 17.87 mmHg, P < .01). Clinical symptom evaluation demonstrated a significant decrease in the number of defecations and the frequency of tenesmus.

CONCLUSION

Neoadjuvant chemoradiation did not impair overall short-term sphincter function significantly, regardless of the location of the primary tumor. Although there was a decrease in rectal compliance, it seemed that the tumor-downsizing effect compensated the expected worsening of anorectal function in the early postchemoradiation period.

Differences in ano-neorectal physiology of ileoanal and coloanal reconstructions for restorative proctectomy

OBJECTIVE

Restorative proctectomy with straight coloanal anastomosis (CAA) and restorative proctocolectomy with ilealpouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) are options for maintaining bowel integrity after rectal resection. The aim of this study was to compare clinical function and anorectal physiology in patients treated with CAA and IPAA.

METHOD

Three-dimensional vector-manometry and neorectal volumetry were performed in straight CAA [53 patients (34 male)] and IPAA [61 patients (39 male)] for ulcerative colitis. Function was assessed using a 14 day incontinence diary.

RESULTS

Function was similar in both groups, but neorectal compliance and threshold volumes for sensation, urge and maximum tolerated volume (MTV) were significantly higher after IPAA than after CAA. Mean pressure, vector volume and sphincter symmetry at rest were significant determinants of continence in both groups but squeeze pressure did not correlate significantly with function in either group. Threshold volume, MTV, and compliance were significantly correlated with frequency of defecation in patients with IPAA but not with CAA.

CONCLUSION

A strong consistent resting anal sphincter pressure is one determinant of continence after both IPAA and CAA. Squeeze pressures do not influence the functional result. In IPAA but not CAA, the neorectum has a reservoir function which correlates with the postoperative frequency of defaecation.

Is sphincter preservation reasonable in all patients with rectal cancer?

PURPOSE

Modern sphincter-preserving surgery for ultralow rectal carcinoma has a comparable oncological radicality to abdomino-perineal extirpation (APE). The aim of this study was to assess the long-term morbidity of ultralow anterior resection (ULAR) and its impact on quality of life (QoL) METHODS: The medical records of 142 consecutive patients who underwent surgery for ultralow rectal carcinoma from January 1991 to December 2004 were reviewed retrospectively. The rate of rehospitalisation and rate of non-reversed temporary stomas ("failure" stoma) were analysed. Generic and cancer-specific quality of life questionnaires were used to assess quality of life.

RESULTS

There were a total of 82 ULAR and 60 APE. After ULAR, 25 (30.5%) of the patients were readmitted, stenosis and anastomotic leakage being the main reasons. After APE, only 2 (3.3%) of the patients were readmitted (P < 0.001). The rate of patients with a permanent stoma after sphincter-saving surgery was 22.0%. The failure rate was higher for older patients (P = 0.005) and for coloanal pull-through anastomosis (P = 0.001). The exploratory analysis revealed a negative impact of a "failure" stoma on QoL.

CONCLUSION

Severe long-term morbidity and high failure rate of stoma reversal have a significantly worse impact on QoL after ULAR; therefore, APE is a valid alternative to ULAR, especially in elder patients with planned coloanal pull-through anastomosis.

Quality management in rectal carcinoma: what is feasible?

PURPOSE

A cohort study was carried out to analyse quality indicators in the diagnosis and treatment of rectal carcinoma.

METHODS

A total of 2,470 patients with rectal carcinoma treated between 1985 and 2007 at the Department of Surgery, University of Erlangen, were analysed and compared within four time intervals.

RESULTS

Most of the indicators analysed from 2004 to 2007 fulfilled the defined target values. The indicators for process quality of surgical treatment and the surrogate indicators of outcome quality in surgery showed excellent results. Comparing this to previous data, it displays the new developments such as introduction of multimodal treatment for high-risk patients. While the rate of locoregional recurrences decreased, no significant improvement in survival was found.

CONCLUSIONS

Careful analysis of quality indicators is important for both quality management and comparison of treatment results. The progress in diagnosis and treatment requires a continuous update of definitions and target values.

Long-term results of intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer

PURPOSE

Intersphincteric resection has been performed as an alternative to abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer. The purpose of this study was to assess the long-term results after intersphincteric resection in terms of the morbidity, oncologic safety, and defecatory function.

METHODS

Between 1994 and 2006, 107 consecutive patients with low rectal cancer had curative intersphincteric resection, categorized as total, subtotal, or partial resection of the internal anal sphincter.

RESULTS

There were no mortalities. Neorectal mucosal prolapse in patients with total intersphincteric resection and coloanal anastomotic stenosis in patients with subtotal or partial intersphincteric resection were observed as characteristic late complications. The five-year disease-free survival rates classified according to the TNM stage were 100 percent for stage I, 83.5 percent for stage II, and 72.0 percent for stage III cases. The five-year cumulative local recurrence rate after intersphincteric resection was 2.5 percent. Defecatory function, which was evaluated by bowel movement in a 24-hour period, and continence after intersphincteric resection were objectively good. The results of the multivariate analysis revealed that age was the only factor associated with a risk of fecal incontinence.

CONCLUSION

Provided strict selection criteria are used, intersphincteric resection may be the optimal sphincter-preserving surgery for low rectal cancer.

Intersphincteric resection with direct coloanal anastomosis for ultralow rectal cancer: the experience of People's Republic of China

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the oncologic and functional outcomes of intersphincteric resection in ultralow rectal cancer.

METHODS

From 2000 to 2007, intersphincteric resection with total mesorectal excision was performed in 40 patients with very low rectal cancer (total intersphincteric resection in 5 patients, partial intersphincteric resection in 23 patients, and partial intersphincteric resection with partial dentate line preservation [modified partial intersphincteric resection] in 12 patients). The preoperative tumor stage was T12N01M0.

RESULTS

Morbidity occurred in three patients (anastomotic leakage in one patient, wound infection in two patients), but there was no postoperative mortality. The five-year overall survival rate was 97 percent, and the five-year disease-free survival rate was 86 percent. Patients who underwent a modified partial intersphincteric resection (P = 0.004) or a partial intersphincteric resection (P = 0.008) had significantly better continence than those who underwent total intersphincteric resection, and patients with a diverting stoma had significantly better continence (P = 0.043) than those without a stoma, at 12 months after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Intersphincteric resection is a safe procedure for sphincter-saving rectal surgery in selected patients with very low rectal tumors. A temporary diverting stoma may be beneficial to improve anal function. Modified partial intersphincteric resection under the precondition of radical resection yielded better anal function and a lower rate of incontinence.

Sphincter preservation in low rectal cancer is facilitated by preoperative chemoradiation and intersphincteric dissection

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate oncologic outcome in patients with locally advanced distal rectal cancer treated with preoperative chemoradiation followed by low anterior resection (LAR)/stapled coloanal anastomosis, LAR/intersphincteric dissection/hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis, or abdominoperineal resection (APR).

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Distal rectal cancer presents a surgical challenge, and the goals of treatment often include tumor eradication without sacrifice of the anal sphincters. The technique of intersphincteric resection removes the internal anal sphincter to gain additional distal rectal margin in hopes of avoiding a permanent stoma.

METHODS

We analyzed 148 patients with stage II and III rectal cancers (endorectal ultrasound staged uT3-4 and/or uN1) located < or =6 cm from the anal verge, treated by preoperative chemoradiation and total mesorectal excision from 1998 to 2004. Eighty-five patients (57%) had sphincter-preserving resection (41, LAR/stapled coloanal anastomosis; 44, LAR/intersphincteric resection/hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis); 63 patients had APR.

RESULTS

Patients undergoing APR were older, with more poorly differentiated tumors evidencing less response to chemoradiation and more likely to require extended resection. Complete resection with negative histologic margins was achieved in 92%; circumferential margins were positive in 2 (5%) of 44 in the intersphincteric resection group and 8 (13%) of 63 in the APR group. Distal margins were positive in 2 (5%) of 44 in the intersphincteric resection group. With median follow-up of 47 months, there were a total of 7 local recurrences (5%): 1, 0, and 6 in the stapled anastomosis, intersphincteric resection, and APR groups, respectively. Estimated 5-year recurrence-free survival for the stapled anastomosis, intersphincteric resection, and APR groups were 85%, 83%, and 47% respectively (P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In low rectal cancer, sphincter preservation is facilitated by a significant response to preoperative chemoradiation and intersphincteric resection, without compromise of margins or outcome. In those who have a less favorable response, abdominoperineal resection is more likely to be required and is associated with poorer outcome.