What to do with the rectal stump during sphincter preserving rectal cancer resection with end colostomy: a collaborative snapshot study

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

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to compare low Hartmann's procedure (LHP) with abdominoperineal resection (APR) for rectal cancer (RC) regarding postoperative complications.

METHOD

RC patients receiving radical LHP or APR from 2015 to 2019 in our center were retrospectively enrolled. Patients' demographic and surgical information was collected and analyzed. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance the baseline information. The primary outcome was the incidence of major complications. All the statistical analysis was performed by SPSS 22.0 and R.

RESULTS

342 individuals were primarily included and 134 remained after PSM with a 1:2 ratio (50 in LHP and 84 in APR). Patients in the LHP group were associated with higher tumor height (P < 0.001). No significant difference was observed between the two groups for the incidence of major complications (6.0% vs. 1.2%, P = 0.290), and severe pelvic abscess (2% vs. 0%, P = 0.373). However, the occurrence rate of minor complications was significantly higher in the LHP group (52% vs. 21.4%, P < 0.001), and the difference mainly lay in abdominal wound infection (10% vs. 0%, P = 0.006) and bowel obstruction (16% vs. 4.8%, P = 0.028). LHP was not the independent risk factor of pelvic abscess in the multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

Our data demonstrated a comparable incidence of major complications between LHP and APR. LHP was still a reliable alternative in selected RC patients when primary anastomosis was not recommended.

Hartmann's Procedure Versus Intersphincteric Abdominoperineal Excision in Patients with Rectal Cancer: Report from the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry (SCRCR)

Objective

The primary outcome was to compare overall postoperative surgical complications within 30 days after Hartmann's procedure (HP) compared with intersphincteric abdominoperineal excision (iAPE). The secondary outcome was major surgical complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ III).

Background

There is uncertainty regarding the optimal surgical method in patients with rectal cancer when an anastomosis is unsuitable.

Methods

Rectal cancer patients with a tumor height >5 cm, registered in the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry who received HP or iAPE electively in 2017-2020 were included, (HP, n = 696; iAPE, n = 314). Logistic regression analysis adjusting for body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, sex, age, preoperative radiotherapy, tumor height, cancer stage, operating hospital, and type of operation was performed.

Results

Patients in the HP group were older and had higher American Society of Anesthesiologists scores. The mean operating time was less for HP (290 vs 377 min). Intraoperative bowel perforations were less frequent in the HP group, 3.6% versus 10.2%. Overall surgical complication rates were 20.3% after HP and 15.9% after iAPE (P = 0.118). Major surgical complications were 7.5% after HP and 5.7% and after iAPE (P = 0.351). Multiple regression analysis indicated a higher risk of overall surgical complications after HP (odds ratio: 1.63; 95% confidence interval = 1.09-2.45).

Conclusions

HP was associated with a higher risk of surgical complications compared with iAPE. In patients unfit for anastomosis, iAPE may be preferable. However, the lack of statistical power regarding major surgical complications, prolonged operating time, increased risk of bowel perforation, and lack of long-term outcomes, raises uncertainty regarding recommending intersphincteric abdominoperineal excision as the preferred surgical approach.

Comparison of three-year oncological results after restorative low anterior resection, non-restorative low anterior resection and abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer

INTRODUCTION

Oncological outcome might be influenced by the type of resection in total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer. The aim was to see if non-restorative LAR would have worse oncological outcome. A comparison was made between non-restorative low anterior resection (NRLAR), restorative low anterior resection (RLAR) and abdominoperineal resection (APR).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective cohort included data from patients undergoing TME for rectal cancer between 2015 and 2017 in eleven Dutch hospitals. A comparison was made for each different type of procedure (APR, NRLAR or RLAR). Primary outcome was 3-year overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes included 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) and 3-year local recurrence (LR) rate.

RESULTS

Of 998 patients 363 underwent APR, 132 NRLAR and 503 RLAR. Three-year OS was worse after NRLAR (78.2%) compared to APR (86.3%) and RLAR (92.2%, p < 0.001). This was confirmed in a multivariable Cox regression analysis (HR 1.85 (1.07, 3.19), p = 0.03). The 3-year DFS was also worse after NRLAR (60.3%), compared to APR (70.5%) and RLAR (80.1%, p < 0.001), HR 2.05 (1.42, 2.97), p < 0.001. The LR rate was 14.6% after NRLAR, 5.2% after APR and 4.8% after RLAR (p = 0.005), HR 3.22 (1.61, 6.47), p < 0.001.

CONCLUSION

NRLAR might be associated with worse 3-year OS, DFS and LR rate compared to RLAR and APR.

The complication profile of low Hartmann's in rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Non-restorative options for low rectal cancer not invading the sphincter includes low Hartmann's procedure (LH) and inter-sphincteric abdominoperineal resection (ISAPR). There is currently little comparative data to differentiate these options.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to assess the peri-operative morbidity of LH, and then to compare it to that of ISAPR.

DATA SOURCES

An up-to-date systematic review was performed on the available literature between 2000-2020 on PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, and Cochrane Library databases.

STUDY SELECTION

All studies reporting on non-restorative surgeries for rectal cancer were analysed. Outcomes were firstly analysed between LH and non-LH groups, with further sub-analysis comparing the LH and ISAPR groups.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The main outcome measures were the rates of pelvic sepsis, rates of overall post-operative complication rates, oncological outcomes, and survival.

RESULTS

A total of 12 observational studies were included. There were 3526 patients (61.1%) in the LH group, and 2238 patients (38.9%) in the non-LH group, which included 461 patients who underwent ISAPR. The LH group had a higher rate of pelvic sepsis as compared to the non-LH group (OR: 1.79, 95% CI: 1.39-2.29, P < 0.001). The difference is more marked in the sub-analysis comparing LH and ISAPR alone (OR: 3.94, 95% CI: 1.88-7.84, P < 0.01) corresponding to a higher rate of unplanned re-intervention. LH was associated with a higher rate of short-term post-operative mortality as compared to the non-LH group.

CONCLUSION

ISAPR is the preferred option for non-restorative rectal surgery, with a more favourable peri-operative morbidity and short-term mortality profile as compared to LH.

A meta-analysis of low Hartmann's procedure versus abdominoperineal resection for non-restorative treatment of rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Non-restorative surgery for rectal cancer is indicated in patients with comorbidities, advanced disease and poor continence. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the postoperative morbidity of Hartmann's procedure (HP) with that of extrasphincteric and intersphincteric abdominoperineal resection (APR) in the treatment of rectal cancer.

METHODS

The Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched for publications comparing postoperative morbidity of HP and APR. The incidence of overall surgical complications, pelvic-perineal complications and pelvic abscess was analysed as primary endpoints. Readmissions requiring reintervention and postoperative mortality were also compared.

RESULTS

A cumulative analysis showed a significantly higher rate of overall complications (odds ratio (OR) 0.553, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.320 to 0.953 and P value 0.033) and pelvic-perineal complications (OR 0.464, 95% CI 0.250 to 0.861 and P value 0.015) after APR. The incidence of isolated pelvic abscess formation was significantly higher after HP (OR 2.523, 95% CI 1.383 to 4.602 and P value 0.003). A subgroup analysis of intersphincteric APR compared with HP did not show any significant difference in the incidence of overall complications, pelvic-perineal complications or pelvic abscess formation (P values of 0.452, 0.258 and 0.100, respectively). There was no significant difference in readmissions, reinterventions and mortality after HP and APR (P 0.992, 0.198 and 0.151).

CONCLUSION

An extrasphincteric APR is associated with higher overall and pelvic-perineal complications and may be reserved for tumours invading the anal sphincter complex. In the absence of sphincter involvement, both HP and intersphincteric APR are better alternatives with comparable morbidity.

Long-term stoma-related reinterventions after anterior resection for rectal cancer with or without anastomosis: population data from the Dutch snapshot study

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to analyze the stoma-related reinterventions, complications and readmissions after an anterior resection for rectal cancer, based on a cross-sectional nationwide cohort study with 3-year follow-up.

METHODS

Rectal cancer patients who underwent a resection with either a functional anastomosis, a defunctioned anastomosis, or Hartmann's procedure (HP) with an end colostomy in 2011 in 71 Dutch hospitals were included. The primary outcome was number of stoma-related reinterventions.

RESULTS

Of the 2095 patients with rectal cancer, 1400 patients received an anterior resection and were included in this study; 257 received an initially functional anastomosis, 741 a defunctioned anastomosis, and 402 patients a HP. Of the 1400 included patients, 62% were males, 38% were females and the mean age was 67 years (SD 11.1). Following a primary functional anastomosis, 48 (19%) patients received a secondary stoma. Stoma-related complications occurred in six (2%) patients, requiring reintervention in one (0.4%) case. In the defunctioned anastomosis group, stoma-related complications were present in 92 (12%) patients, and required reintervention in 23 (3%) patients, in 10 (1%) of these more than 1 year after initial resection. Stoma-related complications occurred in 92 (23%) patients after a HP, and required reintervention in 39 (10%) patients in 17 (4%) of cases more than 1 year after initial resection. The permanent stoma rate was 11% and 20%, in the functional anastomosis and the defuctioned anastomosis group, respectively. The end colostomy in the HP group was reversed in 4% of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Construction of a stoma after resection for rectal cancer with preservation of the sphincter is accompanied with long-term stoma-related morbidity. Stoma complications are more frequent after a HP. Even after 1 year, a significant number of reinterventions are required.

Does oncological outcome differ between restorative and nonrestorative low anterior resection in patients with primary rectal cancer?

AIM

Nonrestorative low anterior resection (n-rLAR) (also known as low Hartmann's) is performed for rectal cancer when a poor functional outcome is anticipated or there have been problems when constructing the anastomosis. Compared with restorative LAR (rLAR), little oncological outcome data are available for n-rLAR. The aim of this study was to compare oncological outcomes between rLAR and n-rLAR for primary rectal cancer.

METHOD

This was a nationwide cross-sectional comparative study including all elective sphincter-saving LAR procedures for nonmetastatic primary rectal cancer performed in 2011 in 71 Dutch hospitals. Oncological outcomes of patients undergoing rLAR and n-rLAR were collected in 2015; the data were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and the results compared using log-rank testing. Uni- and multivariable Cox regression analysis was used to evaluate the association between the type of LAR and oncological outcome measures.

RESULTS

A total of 1197 patients were analysed, of whom 892 (75%) underwent rLAR and 305 (25%) underwent n-rLAR. The 3-year local recurrence (LR) rate was 3% after rLAR and 8% after n-rLAR (P < 0.001). The 3-year disease-free survival and overall survival rates were 77% (rLAR) vs 62% (n-rLAR) (P < 0.001) and 90% (rLAR) vs 75% (n-rLAR) (P < 0.001), respectively. In multivariable Cox analysis, n-rLAR was independently associated with a higher risk of LR (OR = 2.95) and worse overall survival (OR = 1.72).

CONCLUSION

This nationwide study revealed that n-rLAR for rectal cancer was associated with poorer oncological outcome than r-LAR. This is probably a noncausal relationship, and might reflect technical difficulties during low pelvic dissection in a subset of those patients, with oncological implications.

Management of rectal stump leak following emergency Hartmann’s procedure

We report on the management of three cases of rectal stump leak and sepsis following urgent Hartmann’s procedure for perforated sigmoid diverticulitis or large bowel obstruction. Two patients had significant risk factors for poor tissue healing. All patients developed features of sepsis and computer tomography scans demonstrated rectal stump leak with adjacent collections. All patients required reoperation for drainage and washout of abscess. An intraperitoneal catheter system was introduced together with drains in order to continue on the ward until tract was formed. There was no mortality and minimal morbidity. The key to management of rectal stump leak is the early and aggressive drainage of the associated collection and continued irrigation of the stump.

Low Hartmann's procedure or intersphincteric abdominoperineal resection in the primary treatment of low rectal cancer; a survey among surgeons evaluating current practice

BACKGROUND

Low Hartmann's procedure (LHP) and intersphincteric abdominoperineal resection (iAPR) are both surgical options in the treatment of distal rectal cancer when there is no intention to restore bowel continuity. This study aimed to evaluate current practice among members of the Dutch Association of Coloproctology (WCP).

METHODS

An online survey among members of the WCP who represent 66 Dutch hospitals was conducted. The survey consisted of 15 questions addressing indications for surgical procedures and complications.

RESULTS

Surgeons from 37 hospitals (56%) responded. Thirty-six percent does not distinguish low from high Hartmann's procedures based on estimated length of the rectal remnant. Overall, iAPR was the preferred technique in 86%. If asking whether operative approach would be different in tumours at 1 cm from the pelvic floor compared to 5 cm distance, 62% stated that they would consider a different technique. The incidence of pelvic abscess after LHP was thought to be higher, equal or lower than iAPR in 36%, 36% and 21%, respectively, with the remaining respondents not answering this question.

CONCLUSIONS

The vast majority of the respondents considers iAPR as the preferred non-restorative procedure for rectal cancer not invading the sphincter complex, which contradicts with population based data from 2011.