Protective ileostomy creation after anterior resection of the rectum: Shared decision-making or still subjective?

Preoperative risk factors and cumulative incidence of temporary ileostomy non-closure after sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Temporary ileostomy (TI) has proven effective in reducing the severity of anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer surgery; however, some ileostomies fail to reverse over time, leading to conversion into a permanent stoma (PS). In this study, we aimed to investigate the preoperative risk factors and cumulative incidence of TI non-closure after sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a meta-analysis after searching the Embase, Web of Science, PubMed, and MEDLINE databases from their inception until November 2023. We collected all published studies on the risk factors related to TI non-closure after sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer.

RESULTS

A total of 1610 studies were retrieved, and 13 studies were included for meta-analysis, comprising 3026 patients. The results of the meta-analysis showed that the identified risk factors included older age (p = 0.03), especially > 65 years of age (p = 0.03), male sex (p = 0.009), American Society of Anesthesiologists score ≥ 3 (p = 0.004), comorbidity (p = 0.001), and distant metastasis (p < 0.001). Body mass index, preoperative hemoglobin, preoperative albumin, preoperative carcinoma embryonic antigen, tumor location, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, smoking, history of abdominal surgery, and open surgery did not significantly change the risk of TI non-closure.

CONCLUSION

We identified five preoperative risk factors for TI non-closure after sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer. This information enables surgeons to identify high-risk groups before surgery, inform patients about the possibility of PS in advance, and consider performing protective colostomy or Hartmann surgery.

A comprehensive evaluation of 80 consecutive robotic low anterior resections: impact of not mobilizing the splenic flexure alongside low-tie vascular ligation as a standardized technique

Rectal cancer surgery represents challenges due to its location. To overcome them and minimize the risk of anastomosis-related complications, some technical maneuvers or even a diverting ileostomy may be required. One of these technical steps is the mobilization of the splenic flexure (SFM), especially in medium/low rectal cancer. High-tie vascular ligation may be another one. However, the need of these maneuvers may be controversial, as especially SFM may be time-consuming and increase the risk of iatrogenic. The objective is to present the short- and long-term outcomes of a low-tie ligation combined with no SFM in robotic low anterior resection (LAR) for mid- and low rectal cancer as a standardized technique. A retrospective observational single-cohort study was carried out at Reina Sofia University Hospital, Cordoba, Spain. 221 robotic rectal resections between Jul-18th-2018 and Jan-12th-2023 were initially considered. After case selection, 80 consecutive robotic LAR performed by a single surgeon were included. STROBE checklist assessed the methodological quality. Histopathological, morbidity and oncological outcomes were assessed. Anastomotic stricture occurrence and distance to anal verge were evaluated after LAR by rectosigmoidoscopy. Variables related to the ileostomy closure such as time to closure, post-operative complications or hospital stay were also considered. The majority of patients (81.2%) presented a mid-rectal cancer and the rest, lower location (18.8%). All patients had adequate perfusion of the anastomotic stump assessed by indocyanine green. Complete total mesorectal excision was performed in 98.8% of the patients with a lymph node ratio < 0.2 in 91.3%. The anastomotic leakage rate was 5%. One patient (1.5%) presented local recurrence. Anastomosis stricture occurred in 7.5% of the patients. The limitations were small cohort and retrospective design. The non-mobilization of the splenic flexure with a low-tie ligation in robotic LAR is a feasible and safe procedure that does not affect oncological outcomes.

What affects the selection of diverting ileostomy in rectal cancer surgery: a single-center retrospective study

BACKGROUND

The selection of diverting ileostomy (DI) is controversial. This study aimed to explore the factors affecting the selection of diverting ileostomy (DI) following laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer.

METHODS

This retrospective, case-control study included patients who underwent laparoscopic-assisted sphincter-saving surgery for mid-low rectal cancer from January 2019 to June 2021. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed on the patient's clinicopathological characteristics and pelvic dimensions measured by abdominopelvic electron beam computed tomography.

RESULTS

A total of 382 patients were included in the analysis, of which 182 patients (47.6%) did not undergo DI, and 200 patients (52.4%) underwent DI. The univariate analysis suggested that male sex (p = 0.003), preoperative radiotherapy (p < 0.001), patients with an anastomosis below the levator ani plane (p < 0.001), the intertuberous distance (p < 0.001), the sacrococcygeal distance (p = 0.025), the mid pelvis anteroposterior diameter (p = 0.009), and the interspinous distance (p < 0.001) were associated with performing DI. Multivariate analysis confirmed that preoperative radiotherapy (p = 0.037, odds ratio [OR] = 2.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.07-8.30), anastomosis below the levator ani plane (p < 0.001, OR = 7.09, 95% CI = 4.13-12.18), and the interspinous distance (p = 0.047, OR = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.93-1.00) were independently associated with performing DI.

CONCLUSION

Pelvic parameters also influence the choice of DI. According to this single-center experience, patients with a shorter interspinous distance, particularly narrow pelvic with an interspinous distance of < 94.8 mm, preoperative radiotherapy, and anastomosis below the levator ani plane, prefer to have a DI and should be adequately prepared by the physician.

Transition from laparoscopic to robotic approach in rectal cancer: a single-center short-term analysis based on the learning curve

As a novel procedure becomes more and more used, knowledge about its learning curve and its impact on outcomes is useful for future implementations. Our aim is (i) to identify the phases of the robotic rectal surgery learning process and assess the safety and oncological outcomes during that period, (ii) to compare the robotic rectal surgery learning phases outcomes with laparoscopic rectal resections performed before the implementation of the robotic surgery program. We performed a retrospective study, based on a prospectively maintained database, with methodological quality assessment by STROBE checklist. All the procedures were performed by the same two surgeons. A total of 157 robotic rectal resections from June 2018 to January 2022 and 97 laparoscopic rectal resections from January 2018 to July 2019 were included. The learning phase was completed at case 26 for surgeon A, 36 for surgeon B, and 60 for the center (both A & B). There were no differences in histopathological results or postoperative complications between phases, achieving the same ratio of mesorectal quality, circumferential and distal resection margins as the laparoscopic approach. A transitory increase of major complications and anastomotic leakage could occur once overcoming the learning phase, secondary to the progressive complexity of cases. Robotic rectal cancer surgery learning curve phases in experienced laparoscopic surgeons was completed after 25-35 cases. Implementation of a robotic rectal surgery program is safe in oncologic terms, morbidity, mortality and length of stay.

Is Delaying a Coloanal Anastomosis the Ideal Solution for Rectal Surgery?: Analysis of a Multicentric Cohort of 564 Patients From the GRECCAR

OBJECTIVES

To assess the specific results of delayed coloanal anastomosis (DCAA) in light of its 2 main indications.

BACKGROUND

DCAA can be proposed either immediately after a low anterior resection (primary DCAA) or after the failure of a primary pelvic surgery as a salvage procedure (salvage DCAA).

METHODS

All patients who underwent DCAA intervention at 30 GRECCAR-affiliated hospitals between 2010 and 2021 were retrospectively included.

RESULTS

Five hundred sixty-four patients (male: 63%; median age: 62 years; interquartile range: 53-69) underwent a DCAA: 66% for primary DCAA and 34% for salvage DCAA. Overall morbidity, major morbidity, and mortality were 57%, 30%, and 1.1%, respectively, without any significant differences between primary DCAA and salvage DCAA ( P = 0.933; P = 0.238, and P = 0.410, respectively). Anastomotic leakage was more frequent after salvage DCAA (23%) than after primary DCAA (15%), ( P = 0.016).Fifty-five patients (10%) developed necrosis of the intra-abdominal colon. In multivariate analysis, intra-abdominal colon necrosis was significantly associated with male sex [odds ratio (OR) = 2.67 95% CI: 1.22-6.49; P = 0.020], body mass index >25 (OR = 2.78 95% CI: 1.37-6.00; P = 0.006), and peripheral artery disease (OR = 4.68 95% CI: 1.12-19.1; P = 0.030). The occurrence of this complication was similar between primary DCAA (11%) and salvage DCAA (8%), ( P = 0.289).Preservation of bowel continuity was reached 3 years after DCAA in 74% of the cohort (primary DCAA: 77% vs salvage DCAA: 68%, P = 0.031). Among patients with a DCAA mannered without diverting stoma, 75% (301/403) have never required a stoma at the last follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

DCAA makes it possible to definitively avoid a stoma in 75% of patients when mannered initially without a stoma and to save bowel continuity in 68% of the patients in the setting of failure of primary pelvic surgery.