Laparoscopic Abdominal Transanal Proctocolectomy with Coloanal Anastomosis Is a Good Surgical Option in Selective Patients with Low-Lying Rectal Cancer: A Retrospective Analysis Based on a Single Surgeon's Experience

Effect of Biofeedback Therapy during Temporary Stoma Period in Rectal Cancer Patients: A Prospective Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

This prospective randomized controlled study was designed to evaluate the effect of biofeedback therapy (BFT) during temporary stoma period to prevent defecation dysfunction after sphincter-preserving surgery (SPS).

METHODS

Following SPS with temporary stoma, patients were divided according to whether (BFT group) or not (Control group) they received BFT. BFT was performed once or twice a week during the temporary stoma period. Kegel exercise were advised to all the patients. Subjective defecation symptoms were evaluated according to Cleveland Clinic Incontinence Score (CCIS) as primary outcome at 12 months postoperatively. Manometric data of five time-points were also analyzed.

RESULTS

Twenty-one patients in the BFT group and 23 patients in the control group received anorectal physiologic testing. The incidence of CCIS of more than 9 points, which is the primary end point in this study, was not statistically different between BFT group and control group (p = 1.000). The liquid stool incontinence in the BFT group showed a better tendency (p = 0.06) at 12 months post-SPS. Time-dependent serial changes in maximal sensory threshold (Max RST) was significantly different between the BFT and control groups (p = 0.048). Also, the change of mean resting pressure (MRP) tended to be more stable in the BFT group (p = 0.074).

CONCLUSIONS

The BFT in the period of temporary stoma may be related to liquid stool incontinence at 12 months post-SPS and lead to stable MRP and better Max RST. Therefore, BFT during temporary stoma might be helpful for preventing and minimizing defecation dysfunction in high risk patients after SPS, NCT01661829).

Prognostic importance of circumferential resection margin in the era of evolving surgical and multidisciplinary treatment of rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Circumferential resection margin is considered an important prognostic parameter after rectal cancer surgery, but its impact might have changed because of improved surgical quality and tailored multimodality treatment. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the prognostic importance of circumferential resection margin involvement based on the most recent literature.

METHODS

A systematic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was performed for studies published between January 2006 and May 2019. Studies were included if 3- or 5-year oncological outcomes were reported depending on circumferential resection margin status. Outcome parameters were local recurrence, overall survival, disease-free survival, and distant metastasis rate. The Newcastle Ottawa Scale and Jadad score were used for quality assessment of the studies. Meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model and reported as a pooled odds ratio or hazard ratio with 95% confidence interval.

RESULTS

Seventy-five studies were included, comprising a total of 85,048 rectal cancer patients. Significant associations between circumferential resection margin involvement and all long-term outcome parameters were uniformly found, with varying odds ratios and hazard ratios depending on circumferential resection margin definition (<1 mm, ≤1 mm, otherwise), neoadjuvant treatment, study period, and geographical origin of the studies.

CONCLUSION

Circumferential resection margin involvement has remained an independent, poor prognostic factor for local recurrence and survival in most recent literature, indicating that circumferential resection margin status can still be used as a short-term surrogate endpoint.

Reconsideration of the Safety of Laparoscopic Rectal Surgery for Cancer

The oncological outcomes of laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery were evaluated in recent multicenter randomized clinical trials (RCTs). The MRC-CLASSIC, COLOR II, and COREAN trials found no differences in local recurrence or diseasefree survival rate between laparoscopic and open surgery. However, the noninferiority of laparoscopic surgery with respect to open surgery for rectal cancer was not established on statistical analysis in the ACOSOG Z6051 and the ALaCaRT trials. Quality of total mesorectal excision (TME) is one of the most important prognostic factors. Incomplete TME had unfavorable oncologic outcomes compared to complete TME. Although TME quality can be clearly identified on pathologic evaluation, there is controversy regarding the acceptable range of oncologically safe TME for laparoscopic surgery. It is not certain whether near-complete TME has an unfavorable oncologic impact and whether laparoscopic surgery with near-complete TME is an oncological threat. Therefore, the surgical community will be interested in the long-term outcomes and meta-analyses of ongoing large-scale RCTs. Laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery has been steadily improving its safety for oncology surgery, which has been reported consistently in various multicenter RCTs. To improve surgical quality, colorectal surgeons should choose the most appropriate surgical technique, including laparoscopic surgery.