Interactive online informational and peer support application for patients with low anterior resection syndrome: patient survey and protocol for a multicentre randomized controlled trial

An online educational and supportive care application for rectal cancer survivors with low anterior resection syndrome: A mixed methods pilot study

AIM

Restorative proctectomy is commonly associated with significant bowel dysfunction, known as low anterior resection syndrome (LARS), which has a negative impact on patients' quality of life. We developed an online patient-centred application on LARS (eLARS) for rectal cancer survivors. The primary objective of this study was to assess the feasibility of eLARS for rectal cancer survivors with LARS following restorative proctectomy. The secondary objective was to explore participants' experiences with LARS and the eLARS application.

METHODS

This was a mixed methods study, which included a feasibility and qualitative analysis. Participants were rectal cancer survivors who underwent restorative proctectomy for rectal cancer within 3 years, completed all adjuvant treatment, and suffered from bowel dysfunction postoperatively. Participants were given access to the application over a 2-month study period. Feasibility was defined as 75% of study participants using the application ≥4 times per month. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants after the study period and were analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Our sample included eight rectal cancer survivors, five women and three men. The median age was 58.5 years (56.5-64.5). Most participants (75%) were >1-year post-restorative proctectomy. 75% of study participants used the application ≥4 times per month for 2 months. Our thematic analysis revealed that participants felt that they lacked access to credible information and emotional support around the time of ileostomy closure, and found that eLARS addressed these challenges.

CONCLUSION

eLARS is a feasible educational and supportive care intervention for patients with LARS and has the potential to improve patients' quality of life.

Mobile applications in gastrointestinal surgery: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Mobile applications can facilitate or improve gastrointestinal surgical care by benefiting patients, healthcare providers, or both. The extent to which applications are currently in use in gastrointestinal surgical care is largely unknown, as reported in literature. This systematic review was conducted to provide an overview of the available gastrointestinal surgical applications and evaluate their prospects for surgical care provision.

METHODS

The PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched for articles up to October 6th 2022. Articles were considered eligible if they assessed or described mobile applications used in a gastrointestinal surgery setting for healthcare purposes. Two authors independently evaluated selected studies and extracted data for analysis. Descriptive data analysis was conducted. The revised Cochrane risk of bias (RoB-2) tool and ROBINS-I assessment tool were used to determine the methodological quality of studies.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight articles describing twenty-nine applications were included. The applications were classified into seven categories: monitoring, weight loss, postoperative recovery, education, communication, prognosis, and clinical decision-making. Most applications were reported for colorectal surgery, half of which focused on monitoring. Overall, a low-quality evidence was found. Most applications have only been evaluated on their usability or feasibility but not on the proposed clinical benefits. Studies with high quality evidence were identified in the areas of colorectal (2), hepatopancreatobiliary (1) and bariatric surgery (1), reporting significantly positive outcomes in terms of postoperative recovery, complications and weight loss.

CONCLUSIONS

The interest for applications and their use in gastrointestinal surgery is increasing. From our study, it appears that most studies using applications fail to report adequate clinical evaluation, and do not provide evidence on the effectiveness or safety of applications. Clinical evaluation of objective outcomes is much needed to evaluate the efficacy, quality and safety of applications being used as a medical device across user groups and settings.

Assessment of Quality of Life in Rectal Cancer with Organ-Preservation Treatment: Are We There yet?

Rectal cancer is a common cancer and shows an increased incidence with older age. Although the gold standard treatment is surgical excision, minimally invasive approaches are increasingly used and organ preservation is becoming a reasonable approach. The conservative treatment approach includes local excision, external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy. However, these all carry a risk of side-effects. It is crucial to provide patients with information to quantify the improvement or detriment in quality of life with their cancer treatment. This can only be done with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) as tools within current and future trials. Colorectal cancer has numerous publications with specific PROMs. However, PROMs reporting in rectal cancer is more sparse; PROMs are generally extrapolated from colorectal cancer. Rectal PROMs trials hold small population samples and PROMs as an end point is scarce. We present a review of recent literature based on the PROMs reporting of quality of life for rectal cancer patients and introduce the CITRuS trial as an innovative feasibility study related to electronic PROMs data collection.

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.