Feasibility Study of Transanal Irrigation Using a Colostomy Irrigation System in Patients With Low Anterior Resection Syndrome

Truly Inevitable-Our Perspective on the Complications After Surgery for Rectal Cancer

Rectal cancer is one of the most common malignancies in the GI tract. Although recent technology and treatments are available today, complications are still there. The focus of this study is to draw attention towards the important complications and their management options in rectal cancer surgeries. Retrospective study of 57 patients diagnosed and operated with rectal cancer between 2012 and 2022 using questionnaire data. 21.05% developed complications following surgery for rectal cancer including SSI, LARS, anastomosis leak, and stomal stenosis. LARS was seen in 26.31% out of the 19 patients involved in the study (LAR + ULAR) of which 80% had minor LARS scores and 20% had major LARS scores. In LARS, 80% had received long-term chemoradiotherapy in a neoadjuvant setting. The study revealed a rising trend of rectal cancer in young individuals (35.08%). Complications are an inevitable part of rectal cancer surgery even with recent technology. Use of long-course radiotherapy in neoadjuvant settings and LAR and ULAR may improve sphincter preservation with the risk of increasing incidence of low anterior resection syndrome, and anastomosis leak should be used cautiously with proper patient selection.

Systematic review of the management options available for low anterior resection syndrome (LARS)

BACKGROUND

Rectal cancer incidence is increasing. Low anterior resection is currently the gold standard surgical management. Postoperatively, patients may present with symptoms indicative of low anterior resection syndrome (LARS). LARS can be debilitating and is difficult to treat with low efficacy of treatment modalities. This systematic review aims to highlight the current evidence regarding LARS management.

METHODS

Systematic review of Medline, Cochrane and Embase used the following terms: "low anterior resection syndrome" AND "management", "low anterior resection syndrome" AND "treatment". Articles that focus solely of low anterior resection syndrome management in patients > 18 years were included. Bias risk was assessed via the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale for cohort studies and the JBI critical appraisal tool for randomized controlled trials. Due to heterogeneity of methodology, no statistical analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight articles with a total of 1914 patients were included in this review. Ninety-five per cent underwent surgery for malignancy. Treatment options included pharmacology, pelvic floor rehabilitation (PFR), transanal irrigation (TAI), sacral nerve modulation (SNM), percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) and "treatment programs" starting from the least invasive procedures escalating to more invasive treatments upon failure. The most common published medical therapies report Ramoestron use; however, studies are low impact. PFR showed significant improvement in LARS mostly in those with symptoms of faecal incontinence. However, long-term outcomes are inconsistent. TAI supplies pseudo-continence with its greatest benefit reported in those with incomplete evacuation. TAI has significant short-term effects on LARS but little long-term effect. TAI is also associated with a significant drop-out rate. SNM's hypothesised benefit is extrapolated from non-LARS associated FI. Results show improvements in FI but a high rate of explantation. PTNS evidence suggests little if any significant LARS improvement. A single "stepwise programme" study reported that 77 per cent did not progress further than diet and medication. Little evidence suggests benefit regarding diet or acupuncture.

DISCUSSION

There is no consensus as to the optimal treatment strategy for LARS. LARS is multifactorial and requires sensitive discussion between patient and surgeon to address the most prominent symptom. It requires physical and psychological input. No single treatment option provides superior results. Treatment is based on symptom control and patient acceptance.

The effect of robotic surgery on low anterior resection syndrome in patients with lower rectal cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Many patients experience anorectal dysfunction after rectal surgery, which is known as low anterior resection syndrome (LARS). Robotic systems have many technical advantages that may be suitable for functional preservation after low rectal resection. Thus, the study aimed to explore whether robotic surgery can reduce the incidence and severity of LARS.

METHODS

Patients undergoing minimally invasive sphincter-sparing surgery for low rectal cancer were enrolled between January 2015 and December 2020. The patients were divided into robotic or laparoscopic groups. The LARS survey was conducted at 6, 12 and 18 months postoperatively. Major LARS scores were analysed as the primary endpoint. In order to reduce confounding factors, one-to-two propensity score matches were used.

RESULTS

In total, 342 patients were enrolled in the study. At 18 months postoperatively, the incidence of LARS was 68.7% (235/342); minor LARS was identified in 112/342 patients (32.7%), and major LARS in 123/342 (36.0%). After matching, the robotic group included 74 patients, and the laparoscopic group included 148 patients. The incidence of major LARS in the robotic group was significantly lower than that in the laparoscopic group at 6, 12, and 18 months after surgery. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, tumour location, laparoscopic surgery, intersphincteric resection, neoadjuvant therapy, and anastomotic leakage were independent risk factors for major LARS after minimally invasive sphincter-sparing surgery for low rectal cancer. Furthermore, a major LARS prediction model was constructed. Results of model evaluation showed that the nomogram had good prediction accuracy and efficiency.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with low rectal cancer may benefit from robotic surgery to reduce the incidence and severity of LARS. Our nomogram could aid surgeons in setting an individualized treatment program for low rectal cancer patients.

Clinical Management of Low Anterior Resection Syndrome: Review of the Current Diagnosis and Treatment

BACKGROUND

Low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) is a series of bowel dysfunction symptoms, including altered bowel frequency, irregular bowel rhythms, fecal incontinence, and constipation. LARS occurs in 80% of patients undergoing sphincter-preserving surgery, affecting patients' quality of life along with social avoidance. Different measurements and treatments have been raised to deal with LARS, but no systematic standard has been developed.

OBJECTIVE AND METHODS

To promote the standardization of clinical trials and clinical management of LARS, this review summarizes the latest findings up until 2023 regarding the diagnostic criteria, assessment protocols, and treatment modalities for postoperative LARS in rectal cancer.

RESULTS

The diagnostic criteria for LARS need to be updated to the definition proposed by the LARS International Collaborative Group, replacing the current application of the LARS score. In both clinical trials and clinical treatment, the severity of LARS should be assessed using at least one symptom assessment questionnaire, the LARS score or MSKCC BFI, and at least one scale related to quality of life. Anorectal manometry, fecoflowmetry, endoscopic ultrasonography, and pelvic floor muscle strength testing are recommended to be adopted only in clinical trials. After analysis of the latest literature on LARS treatment, a stepwise classification model is established for the standardized clinical management of LARS. Patients with minor LARS can start with first-line treatment, including management of self-behavior with an emphasis on diet modification and medication. Lamosetron, colesevelam hydrochloride, and loperamide are common antidiarrheal agents. Second-line management indicates multi-mode pelvic floor rehabilitation and transanal irrigation. Patients with major LARS should select single or several treatments in second-line management. Refractory LARS can choose antegrade enema, neuromodulation, or colostomy.

CONCLUSIONS

In clinical trials of LARS treatment between 2020 and 2022, the eligibility criteria and evaluation system have been variable. Therefore, it is urgent to create a standard for the diagnosis, assessment, and treatment of LARS. Failure to set placebos and differentiate subgroups are limitations of many current LARS studies. Randomized controlled trials comparing diverse therapies and long-term outcomes are absent, as well. Moreover, a new scale needs to be developed to incorporate the patient's perspective and facilitate outpatient follow-up. Though the establishment of a stepwise classification model for LARS treatment here is indispensable, the refinement of the guidelines may be improved by more standardized studies.

Bowel dysfunction following pelvic organ cancer: a prospective study on the treatment effect in nurse-led late sequelae clinics

BACKGROUND

Bowel dysfunction following treatment of pelvic organ cancer is prevalent and impacts the quality of life (QoL). The present study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and effects of treating bowel dysfunction in two nurse-led late sequelae clinics.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Treatment effects were monitored prospectively by patient-reported outcome measures collected at baseline and discharge. Change in bowel function was evaluated by 15 bowel symptoms, the St. Mark's Incontinence Score, the Patients Assessment of Constipation-Symptoms (PAC-SYM) score and self-rated bowel function. QoL was evaluated by the EuroQol 5-dimension 5-level (EQ-5D-5L) utility score and by measuring the impact of bowel function on QoL.

RESULTS

From June 2018 to December 2021, 380 cancer survivors (46% rectal, 15% gynaecological, 13% anal, 12% colon, 12% prostate, and 2% other cancers) completed a baseline questionnaire and started treatment for bowel dysfunction. At referral, 96% of patients were multisymptomatic. The most frequent symptoms were faecal urgency (95%), fragmented defaecation (93%), emptying difficulties (92%), flatus/faecal incontinence (flatus 89%, liquid 59%, solid 33%), and obstructed defaecation (79%). In total, 169 patients were discharged from the clinics in the follow-up period. At discharge, 69% received conservative treatment only and 24% also received transanal irrigation; 4% were surgically treated; 3% discontinued treatment. Improvements were seen in all 15 bowel symptoms (p < 0.001), the mean St. Mark's Incontinence Score (12.0 to 9.9, p < 0.001), the mean PAC-SYM score (1.04 to 0.84, p < 0.001) and the mean EQ-5D-5L utility score (0.78 to 0.84, p < 0.001). Self-rated bowel function improved in 56% (p < 0.001) of cases and the impact of bowel function on QoL improved in 46% (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Treatment of bowel dysfunction in nurse-led late sequelae clinics is feasible and significantly improved bowel function and QoL.

The risk factors of low anterior resection syndrome after colorectal cancer surgery: A retrospective study of 566 patients in a single institution in China

PURPOSE

This study aims to identify the independent risk factors in the low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) after surgery for colorectal cancer (CRC).

METHOD

This was a retrospective, single-institution study in the Second Affiliation Hospital of Dalian Medical University, China. Patients underwent sphincter-preserving low anterior resection with total or partial mesorectal resection (with or without protective ileostomy) and completed a self-filled questionnaire over the phone to assess postoperative bowel dysfunction from January 2017 to December 2019. The predictors of LAR were evaluated using univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULT

The study population was 566 patients, 264 (46.64%), 224 (39.58%), and 78 (13.78%) patients with no, minor, and major LARS, respectively. In the univariate analysis, independent factors such as tumor location and size, anastomotic height, protective ileostomy, post-operation chemoradiotherapy, tumor T stage, lymphatic nodal metastasis classification, surgery duration, and time interval for closure of stoma were significantly associated with LARS points while we found the tumor T stage and lymphatic nodal metastasis classification as the new independent risk factors compared with the last decade studies. In the multivariate analysis, factors such as low and middle tumor location and protective ileostomy, and post operation treatment, nodal metastasis classification were the independent risk factors for major LARS.

CONCLUSION

The new independence risk factors were tumor T stage and lymphatic nodal metastasis status in univariate analysis in our study, with anastomotic height, low and middle tumor location, protective ileostomy, post-operation chemoradiotherapy, nodal metastasis status increasing LARS point in multivariate analysis after surgery for CRC.