Protective ileostomy after low anterior resection for extraperitoneal rectal cancer: does the reversal surgery timing affect closure failure?

Loop ileostomy is commonly performed after LAR with TME to temporarily protect the anastomosis. Usually, defunctioning stoma is closed after 1-6 months, although sometimes it becomes definitive de facto. The aim of this study is to investigate the long-term risk of no-reversal of protective ileostomy after LAR for middle-low rectal cancer and the predictive risk factors. A retrospective analysis of a consecutive cohort of patients who underwent curative LAR with covering ileostomy for extraperitoneal rectal cancer in two colorectal units was performed. A different policy for scheduling stoma closure was applied between centers. All the data were collected through an electronic database (Microsoft Excel®). Descriptive statistical analysis was performed using Fisher's exact and Student's t test. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was conducted. Two-hundred twenty-two patients were analysed: reversal procedure was carried out in 193 patients, in 29 cases stoma was never closed. The mean interval time from index surgery was 4.9 months (Center1: 3 vs. Center2: 7.8). At the univariate analysis, mean age and tumor stage were significantly higher in the "no-reversal" group. Unclosed ostomies were significantly lower in Center 1 than Center 2 (8% vs. 19.6%). At the multivariate analysis female gender, anastomotic leakage and Center 2 had significant higher risk of unclosed ileostomy. Currently, no clinical recommendations have been established and the policy of scheduling stoma reversal is variable. Our study suggests that an established protocol could avoid closure delay, decreasing permanent stomas. Consequently, ileostomy closure should be weighed as standardized step in cancer therapeutic pathway.

Comparison between magnetic resonance imaging and rigid rectoscopy in the preoperative identification of intra- and extraperitoneal rectal cancer

AIM

Accurate preoperative discrimination between extra- and intraperitoneal rectal cancer has important treatment implications. Our main objective was to compare the diagnostic performance of MRI with rigid rectoscopy (RRS) in assessing the location of rectal cancers above or below the peritoneal reflection (PR), using the findings obtained during abdominal surgery for treatment of the cancer as the reference standard. We also compared the accuracy of MRI and RRS in assessing the level of the lower border of the tumour from the anal verge.

METHOD

Patients with rectal carcinoma awaiting surgery underwent MRI and RRS. The MRI images were reviewed by two abdominal radiologists who determined the location of the inferior border of the tumour in relation to the PR. Receiver-operating characteristics (ROC) curve analysis was performed to determine the diagnostic performance of RRS at different cut-off values.

RESULTS

The sensitivity and specificity were 98.15% and 100%, respectively, for MRI, and 100% and 76.92%, respectively, for RRS at a cut-off value of < 10 cm. The mean level of the lower border of the tumour from the anal verge was 68 ± 44.3 mm on RRS and 73.5 ± 42.4 mm on MRI (P = 0.25), with a trend towards overestimation with MRI.

CONCLUSION

RRS is still the main means of assessing the level of a rectal tumour from the anal verge, but MRI has value in determining the level of the tumour in relation to the PR, which cannot be seen on endoscopy.