Coloanal Anastomosis Research Articles

A study of intersphincteric resection rate following robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision versus laparoscopic-assisted total mesorectal excision for patients with middle and low rectal cancer: study protocol for a multicenter randomized clinical trial

IntroductionRobotic-assisted complete mesorectal excision (RATME) is increasingly being used by colorectal surgeons. Most surgeons consider RATME a safe method, and believe it can facilitate total mesorectal excision (TME) in rectal cancer, and may potentially have advantages over intersphincteric resection (ISR) and anus preservation. Therefore, this trial was designed to investigate whether RATME has technical advantages and can increase the ISR rate compared with laparoscopic-assisted TME (LATME) in patients with middle and low rectal cancer.Methods and analysisThis is a multicenter, superiority, randomized controlled trial designed to compare RATME and LATME in middle and low rectal cancer. The primary endpoint is the ISR rate. The secondary endpoints are coloanal anastomosis (CAA) rate, conversion to open surgery, conversion to transanal TME (TaTME), abdominoperineal resection (APR) rate, postoperative morbidity and mortality within 30 days, pathological outcomes, long-term survival outcomes, functional outcomes, and quality of life. In addition, certain measurements will be conducted to ensure quality and safety, including centralized photography review and semiannual assessment.DiscussionThis trial will clarify if RATME improves ISR and promotes anus preservation in patients with mid- and low-rectal cancer. Furthermore, this trial will provide evidence on the optimal treatment strategies for RATME and LATME in patients with mid- and low-rectal cancer regarding improved operational safety.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT06105203. Registered on October 27, 2023.

Outcomes of Distal Rectal Cancer Patients Who Did Not Qualify for Watch-and-Wait: Comparison of Intersphincteric Resection Versus Abdominoperineal Resection.

Total mesorectal excision (TME) with intersphincteric resection and handsewn coloanal anastomosis (ISR-CAA) has been shown to be oncologically safe in patients with distal rectal cancer treated with preoperative chemoradiation. The introduction of the watch-and-wait (WW) strategy for rectal cancer patients with a clinical complete response to neoadjuvant therapy is changing the profile of patients undergoing TME surgery immediately following neoadjuvant treatment. The outcomes of ISR-CAA for patients with locally advanced rectal cancers not qualifying for WW have not been investigated. We conducted a retrospective analysis comparing the outcomes of ISR-CAA and abdominoperineal resection (APR) in patients with distal rectal cancer treated with neoadjuvant therapy and not qualifying for WW, at a comprehensive cancer center with an established WW program. The primary outcome was local recurrence-free survival. Sixty-seven patients had ISR-CAA and 79 had APR. Median follow-up was 61.1 months. The two groups were similar in sex, tumor stage, grade, and distance from the anal verge, but patients in the APR group were older on average. An R0 resection was achieved in 94% of ISR-CAA patients and 91% of APR patients. Patients in the ISR-CAA group had a lower 5-year rate of local recurrence-free survival (79% vs. 93%; p = 0.038) compared with the APR group; however, 5-year disease-free survival did not differ significantly between groups (67% for ISR-CAA and 64% for APR; p = 0.19). The local recurrence rate after ISR-CAA may be higher than after APR for patients without a clinical complete response to neoadjuvant therapy requiring TME surgery.

Postoperative rectovaginal fistula: stoma may not be necessary—a French retrospective cohort

BackgroundPostoperative rectovaginal fistula leads to a loss of patients’ quality of life and presents significant challenges to the surgeon. The literature focusing specifically on postoperative rectovaginal fistulas is limited. The objective of the present study is to identify factors that can enhance the success of the management of this postoperative rectovaginal fistula.MethodsThis retrospective multicentric study included all patients undergoing surgery for rectovaginal fistulas, excluding those for whom the etiology of rectovaginal fistula was not postoperative. The major outcome measure was the success of the procedure.ResultsA total of 82 patients with postsurgical fistulas were identified, of whom 70 were successfully treated, giving a success rate of 85.4%. On average, these patients required 3.04 ± 2.72 interventions. The creation of a diversion stoma did not increase the success rate of management [odds ratio (OR) = 0.488; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.107–2.220]. Among the 217 procedures performed, 69 were successful, accounting for a 31.8% success rate. The number of interventions and the creation of a diversion stoma did not correlate with the success of management. However, direct coloanal anastomosis was significantly associated with success (OR = 35.06; 95% CI 1.271–997.603; p = 0.036) as compared with endorectal advancement flap (ERAF). Other procedures such as Martius flap did not show a significantly higher success rate.ConclusionThe creation of a diversion stoma is not necessary in closing a fistula. ERAF should be considered as a first-line treatment prior to proposing more invasive approach such as direct coloanal anastomosis.

Rectovaginal fistulas : Differentiated diagnostics and treatment

Rectovaginal fistulas (RVF) represent less than 5% of anorectal fistulas. The classification of RVF is based on the localization (low vs. high) and the etiology. The most frequent causes of RVF are birth trauma, Crohn's disease, previous surgery and pelvic irradiation. In most cases a clinical diagnostic assessment is sufficient. Additionally, endosonography is areliable tool to detect sphincter defects. Computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are reserved for special situations (e.g., RVF related to anastomotic leakage, after pelvic irradiation or associated with complex perianal fistulizing Crohn's disease). The surgical treatment is primarily oriented to the localization and etiology. Surgical techniques range from local procedures (e.g., endorectal advancement flap repair, transvaginal or transperineal closure) up to more invasive tissue interposition (e.g., bulbocavernosus muscle fat tissue flap or transposition of the gracilis muscle). In "high" RVF transabdominal approaches such as coloanal anastomosis, pull through procedures or omental interposition are indicated. All surgical procedures show high recurrence rates. Several operations are mostly necessary and a stoma creation is often required.

A Prospective European Trial Comparing Laparotomy, Laparoscopy, Robotic-Assisted, and Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision Procedures in High-Risk Patients with Rectal Cancer: The RESET Trial.

To compare total mesorectal excision (TME) techniques combined with sphincter-sparing procedure in high-risk patients (HRPs). TME is the standard treatment for rectal cancer, but can be challenging in HRPs. The available surgical approaches must be compared, especially in HRPs. Prospective, observational, multicenter trial to compare laparotomy (OTME), laparoscopy (LTME), robotic-assisted surgery (RTME), and transanal surgery (TaTME) in HRPs. The composite primary outcome included circumferential radial margin (CRM) ≥1mm, TME grade II-III, and absence of Clavien-Dindo grade III-IV complications. Three propensity score analyses were performed (LTME vs. RTME, RTME vs. TaTME, LTME vs. TaTME). 1078 HRPs (75% of men, median body mass index of 27kg/m2, 50% of tumors in the lower third of the rectum) underwent surgery. The RTME and TaTME groups included patients with more advanced and lower tumors and coloanal anastomosis (P<0.001). Operative time was longer for RTME surgery (P<0.001). Conversion rate was similar for minimally invasive procedures (4.5%). The global R0 resection rate was 96% without difference among techniques. The primary outcome rates were 82.4%, 64.3%, 74.7%, and 80.3% for LTME, OTME, RTME, and TaTME, respectively. None achieved the expected success rate (85%), and propensity score analyses found no differences. Operative results were similar between high- and low-volume inclusion centers only for RTME. The RESET trial yielded high-quality results despite focusing on HRPs. Minimally invasive procedures showed similar sphincter-sparing procedure outcomes, but LTME included patients with more favorable tumors. Oncologic and functional outcomes will be evaluated at 2 years (ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT03574493).

FP2.7 - Results of Lower Rectum Cancer Treatment

Abstract Objective The objective of this study is to evaluate oncological outcomes, specifically, the rate of locoregional recurrences in lower third rectum cancers treated with concurrent radio-chemotherapy and radical surgery. Methods Locoregional and metastatic recurrences were analyzed based on the initial tumor stage, response to neoadjuvant treatment, and the type of surgery. We utilized the biomedical statistics software SPSS24 and Microsoft Excel. Statistical analysis was performed using the chi-square test, with the calculation of the P-value (Pearson's test). Results During the period from 2000 to December 2021, 638 consecutive resections for lower third rectum cancer were conducted. One hundred and sixty-one patients (25.23%) underwent abdominoperineal amputation (AAP), while 477 (74.76%) underwent conservative surgery. There were 389 men and 249 women, with an average age of 51 years (ranging from 20 to 88). Thirty of our patients were classified as T1, 163 as T2, 420 as T3, and 25 as T4. One hundred and thirty-five patients (21%) received preoperative radiotherapy, and four hundred and eighty-six (76%) underwent concurrent preoperative radio-chemotherapy. Two hundred and six patients (43%) had an ultralow colorectal anastomosis, and 252 (52.8%) had a coloanal anastomosis. Local resection was performed in nineteen patients. The mortality rate was 0.78%, and the morbidity rate was 34%, including twenty-seven anastomotic fistulas (5.6%). Forty-one local recurrences were observed (6.4%). Conclusion During surgery for lower rectal cancer, the surgeon's primary concern is to achieve a valid oncological resection, preserve sphincter function, and ensure patients a recurrence-free survival.

Short-term outcomes of the "minimal skin incision and no stoma" procedure in needlescopic intersphincteric resection and delayed coloanal anastomosis for low rectal cancer.

Needlescopic surgery is a minimally invasive procedure that uses thin trocars with 3-mm diameter. We used Turnbull-Cutait pull-through and delayed coloanal anastomosis in needlescopic surgery to avoid diverting ileostomy during intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer. In this study, we aim to assess the diverting ileostomy avoidance rate and technical safety of this "minimal skin incision and no stoma" procedure. This single-center retrospective study was conducted at the Cancer Institute Hospital, a tertiary referral center in Japan. Between January 2017 and December 2020, 11 patients underwent needlescopic intersphincteric resection with diverting ileostomy (NSI group), and 19 patients underwent needlescopic intersphincteric resection with delayed coloanal anastomosis (NSD group) for low rectal cancer. Data regarding patient backgrounds and short-term outcomes, including diverting ileostomy avoidance rate, pathological results, and postoperative defecatory function, were compared between the groups. There were no statistically significant differences between the NSI and NSD groups with respect to patient background, operation time (239min versus 220min, p = 0.68), estimated blood loss (45g versus 25g, p = 0.29), R0 resection rate (100% versus 100%, p = 1.00), and length of postoperative hospital stay (16days versus 17days, p = 0.42). The diverting ileostomy avoidance rate was 94.4% in the NSD group. The LARS and Wexner scores 12months after surgery were not significantly different between the two groups. Needlescopic intersphincteric resection and delayed coloanal anastomosis can be safely performed in selected patients with a high rate of diverting ileostomy avoidance and comparable short-term outcomes.

Alliance A022104/NRG-GI010: The Janus Rectal Cancer Trial: a randomized phase II/III trial testing the efficacy of triplet versus doublet chemotherapy regarding clinical complete response and disease-free survival in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer

BackgroundRecent data have demonstrated that in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC), a total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) approach improves compliance with chemotherapy and increases rates of tumor response compared to neoadjuvant chemoradiation (CRT) alone. They further indicate that the optimal sequencing of TNT involves consolidation (rather than induction) chemotherapy to optimize complete response rates. Data, largely from retrospective studies, have also shown that patients with clinical complete response (cCR) after TNT may be managed safely with the watch and wait approach (WW) instead of preemptive total mesorectal resection (TME). However, the optimal consolidation chemotherapy regimen to achieve cCR has not been established, and a randomized clinical trial has not robustly evaluated cCR as a primary endpoint. Collaborating with a multidisciplinary oncology team and patient groups, we designed this NCI-sponsored study of chemotherapy intensification to address these issues and to drive up cCR rates, to provide opportunity for organ preservation, improve quality of life for patients and improve survival outcomes.MethodsIn this NCI-sponsored multi-group randomized, seamless phase II/III trial (1:1), up to 760 patients with LARC, T4N0, any T with node positive disease (any T, N +) or T3N0 requiring abdominoperineal resection or coloanal anastomosis and distal margin within 12 cm of anal verge will be enrolled. Stratification factors include tumor stage (T4 vs T1-3), nodal stage (N + vs N0) and distance from anal verge (0–4; 4–8; 8–12 cm). Patients will be randomized to receive neoadjuvant long-course chemoradiation (LCRT) followed by consolidation doublet (mFOLFOX6 or CAPOX) or triplet chemotherapy (mFOLFIRINOX) for 3–4 months. LCRT in both arms involves 4500 cGy in 25 fractions over 5 weeks + 900 cGy boost in 5 fractions with a fluoropyrimidine (capecitabine preferred). Patients will undergo assessment 8–12 (± 4) weeks post-TNT completion. The primary endpoint for the phase II portion will compare cCR between treatment arms. A total number of 312 evaluable patients (156 per arm) will provide statistical power of 90.5% to detect a 17% increase in cCR rate, at a one-sided alpha = 0.048. The primary endpoint for the phase III portion will compare disease-free survival (DFS) between treatment arms. A total of 285 DFS events will provide 85% power to detect an effect size of hazard ratio 0.70 at a one-sided alpha of 0.025, requiring enrollment of 760 patients (380 per arm). Secondary objectives include time-to event outcomes (overall survival, organ preservation time and time to distant metastasis) and adverse event rates. Biospecimens including archival tumor tissue, plasma and buffy coat, and serial rectal MRIs will be collected for exploratory correlative research. This study, activated in late 2022, is open across the NCTN and had accrued 330 patients as of May 2024. Study support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24 CA196171; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org.DiscussionBuilding on data from modern day rectal cancer trials and patient input from national advocacy groups, we have designed The Janus Rectal Cancer Trial studying chemotherapy intensification via a consolidation chemotherapy approach with the intent to enhance cCR and DFS rates, increase organ preservation rates, and improve quality of life for patients with rectal cancer.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT05610163; Support includes U10CA180868 (NRG) and U10CA180888 (SWOG).

Long-Term Results of 2-Stage Turnbull-Cutait Pull-Through Coloanal Anastomosis for Low Rectal Cancer

In patients operated on for low rectal cancer, 2-stage Turnbull-Cutait pull-through hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis provides benefits in terms of postoperative morbidity compared with standard hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis associated with diverting ileostomy and further ileostomy reversal. To compare long-term results of these 2 techniques after ultralow rectal resection for rectal cancer. In this randomized multicenter clinical trial, neither patients nor surgeons were blinded for technique. Patients were recruited in 3 centers. Patients undergoing ultralow anterior rectal resection needing hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis were randomly assigned to 2-stage Turnbull-Cutait pull-through hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis (n = 46) or standard hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis associated with diverting ileostomy (n = 46). All patients underwent ultralow anterior resection. Patients assigned to the 2-stage Turnbull-Cutait pull-through group underwent exteriorization of a segment of left colon through the anal canal. After 6 to 10 days, the exteriorized colon was resected and a delayed hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis performed. For patients assigned to standard coloanal anastomosis, the hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis was performed with diverting ileostomy during the first operation. Ileostomy closure was scheduled after adjuvant treatment was completed in about 6 to 8 months. The study aimed to compare the differences between the 2 groups in terms of long-term surgery-related morbidity, functional, and oncological outcomes at 3 years postoperatively. Data were analyzed from October 1, 2018, through October 31, 2021. The 92 patients randomized in the first study were included for the 3-year follow-up. The overall morbidity rate in the 2 groups showed that 15 patients (16.3%) had complications with a difference of 6.52 (95% CI, -8.93 to 21.79). Nine patients (19.6%) and 6 patients (13.0%) in the 2-stage Turnbull-Cutait pull-through group and hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis group, respectively, had complications without statistically significant differences (P = .57). Oncological results were comparable between the groups. Long-term fecal continence in the CCA and TCA groups, respectively, assessed using the Wexner Incontinence Score was 10.9 (5.50-15.5) vs 13.0 (7.25-16.0; P = .92), Low Anterior Resection Syndrome score was 32.0 (21.0-37.0) vs 34.0 (23.2-38.5; P = .76), and Colorectal Functional Outcome score was 38.5 (23.0-47.1) vs 40.8 (23.3-58.2; P = .30). In this study, after a 3-year follow-up period, 2-stage Turnbull-Cutait anastomosis for ultralow rectal cancer could be considered as a surgical alternative that has the valuable benefit of avoiding a temporary stoma with similar results in terms of morbidity, fecal continence, patient satisfaction, quality of life, and oncological outcomes when compared with hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis with ileostomy. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01766661.

Construction of a Coloanal Anastomosis vs Closure of a Diverting Ileostomy

Construction of a Coloanal Anastomosis vs Closure of a Diverting Ileostomy

Modified delayed coloanal anastomosis following TME for mid and low rectal cancer: 19 consecutive patients from a single center.

Surgery and management of rectal cancer have made significant progress in recent decades. However, there is still no coloanal anastomosis technique that offers a good compromise between functionality and low morbidity. The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety and efficiency of the modified delayed coloanal anastomosis (mDCA). In this retrospective study, we analyzed the morbi-mortality as well as functional outcomes of 19 patients treated with mDCA, out of 73 colorectal cancer patients treated at our institution from September 2021 to June 2023. The inclusion criteria were cancer of the mid and low rectum (tumor less than 10cm from the anal verge). Morbidity represented by complications of Clavien-Dindo grade III or higher was estimated at 5.2%. Only one patient experienced an asymptomatic anastomotic leak (AL) grade A. Ischemia of the colonic stump occurred in one patient, taken back to the OR on the 5th postoperative day. No stump retraction was noted. Anastomotic stenosis appeared in one patient (5.2%) during the 90-day postoperative period, and was treated by instrumental dilation. Perioperative mortality was nil. The mean St Marks incontinence score at 90days was 13.2 points. At the 3-month follow-up, 15 patients (78.9%) had major low anterior resection syndrome (LARS), three (15.7%) had minor LARS, and one patient (5.2%) had no LARS. None of the patients had a diversion loop ileostomy. The mDCA, by decreasing the rate of AL, without the need for diversion ileostomy, might be an interesting alternative to the conventional immediate coloanal anastomosis (ICA), for restoring the GI tract after proctectomy for cancer.

Outcomes following endorectal pull-through for Hirschsprung disease: a retrospective study

PurposeTo share our experience in the surgical management of patients with Hirschsprung disease (HD) using the trans-anal endorectal pull-through “Soave” technique.MethodsThe study included cases diagnosed as HD who were operated during the period 2008 through 2018. Cases of total colonic aganglionosis were excluded to be discussed in a separate report.ResultsThe study included 67 consecutive cases of HD. All included cases underwent trans-anal endorectal pull-through which was purely trans-anal in 31 (46%), while abdominal-assisted trans-anal endorectal pull-through was applied in the remaining (54%). Early postoperative complications included 2 cases of partial dehiscence at the colo-anal anastomosis; 1 of them deteriorated after re-exploration and unfortunately died. Twenty-six cases were available to assess functional outcomes after corrective surgery. Their age at follow-up ranged between 44 months and 17 years (mean = 78.8 months; median = 72 months). All cases achieved voluntary defecation. However, fecal soiling was a common finding after surgery for HD (69%). Constipation was another common postoperative finding (73%). Lastly, a history of attacks of postoperative enterocolitis was prevalent in 19 cases (73%), which ranged between 1 and 7 attacks usually in the first 2 years after the operation.ConclusionThe trans-anal endorectal pull-through provides an effective surgical treatment for Hirschsprung disease. The high prevalence of fecal soiling after surgery highlights the importance of long-term follow-up to provide the required support for these patients during adolescence and transition into adulthood.

IRIS U kit usefulness in transanal total mesorectal excision for lower rectal cancer to avoid urethral injury

Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) has improved the laparoscopic dissection for rectal cancer in the narrow pelvis. Although taTME has more clinical benefits than laparoscopic surgery, such as a better view of the distal rectum and direct determination of distal resection margin, an intraoperative urethral injury could occur in excision ta-TME. This study aimed to determine the feasibility and efficacy of the ta-TME with IRIS U kit surgery. This retrospective study enrolled 10 rectal cancer patients who underwent a taTME with an IRIS U kit. The study endpoints were the safety of access (intra- or postoperative morbidity). The detectability of the IRIS U kit catheter was investigated by using a laparoscope-ICG fluorescence camera system. Their mean age was 71.4±6.4 (58–78) years; 80 were men, and 2 were women. The mean operative time was 534.6 ± 94.5 min. The coloanal anastomosis was performed in 80%, and 20% underwent abdominal peritoneal resection. Two patients encountered postoperative complications graded as Clavien–Dindo grade 2. The transanal approach with IRIS U kit assistance is feasible, safe for patients with lower rectal cancer, and may prevent intraoperative urethral injury.

ANASTOMOSES ILEO-ANALES (AIA) ET COLO-ANALES (ACA) : INDICATIONS ET RESULTATS AU SERVICE DE CHIRURGIE GENERALE DE L’HOPITAL IGNACEDEEN CHU DE CO NAKRY

The aim of this study was to report our experience in the indications and functional results of ileo-anal and anastomoses in the general colo-anal surgery department of Ignace Deen Hospital, CHU of Conakry. Materials and methods: This was a descriptive retrospective study, conducted over a period of four (04) years from January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2022, carried out at the General Surgery Department Ignace Deen CHU of Conakry. We included in our study all the records of patients who had been admitted and operated on for whom an ileo-anal or coloanal anastomosis was performed in the department. Results: We collected 18 ilioanal and colo-anal anastomoses, i.e. 2.06% out of 872. Thirteen (13) men, and five (5) women; with an average age of 37.11 years. The most represented therapeutic diagnosis was rectal cancer (27.78%). The postoperative courses were simple in most cases (11 cases or 61.11%) and complicated in 7 cases (38.89%). Conclusion: Ileo-anal and colo-anal anastomoses are rare in our practice, functional results require skill in their execution Keywords: Anastomosis, Ileo-anal, Coloanal, Indications, Results, CHU Conakry

(Babcock or Soave Baulieux) Procedure for Coloanal Anastomosis: 03 Cases

The Soave Baulieux procedure is a surgical technique for performing a coloanal anastomosis in cases of pathological colorectal conditions. A coloanal anastomosis is performed through a sleeve of rectal muscularis after a two-stage mucosectomy. In the first stage, the colonic tube is exteriorised through the anal canal, and a few days later a direct coloanal anastomosis is performed in the second stage. This is a salvage operation and its results are not well documented in the literature. This is a study of three (03) consecutive patients, hospitalised and operated on using the Babcock or Soave Baulieux technique at the Department of Visceral Surgery A of the Hassan II University Hospital in Fez, Morocco. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the indications, operative results, postoperative morbidity and mortality, and long-term functional results. Our study concerns three (03) patients with colorectal cancer. In 66.7% of cases, the decision to perform the Soave Baulieux technique was taken preoperatively to avoid other complications related to the low colorectal anastomosis. After the operation, 66.7% of patients had a simple post-operative course and only one patient (33.3%) was re-operated after a complication (necrosis of the anastomosis from the distal segment to the anus). Only one patient had a permanent stoma. Quality of life and functional results were satisfactory in 66.7% of our patients.

Intersphincteric resection following robotic-assisted versus laparoscopy-assisted total mesorectal excision for middle and low rectal cancer: a multicentre propensity score analysis of 1571 patients.

Robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision (RaTME) may be associated with reduced conversion to an open approach and a higher rate of complete total mesorectal excision (TME); however, studies on its advantages in intersphincteric resection (ISR) are inadequate. This retrospective multicenter cohort study enroled consecutive patients who underwent RaTME and laparoscopy-assisted total mesorectal excision (LaTME) at four medical centres between January 2020 and March 2023. Propensity score matching (PSM), inverse probability of treatment weight (IPTW), and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed. The primary outcome was the ISR rate. Secondary outcomes were coloanal anastomosis (CAA), conversion to open surgery, conversion to transanal TME, abdominoperineal resection, postoperative morbidity and mortality within 30 days, and pathological outcomes. Among the 1571 patients, 1211 and 450 underwent LaTME and RaTME, respectively, with corresponding ISR incidences of 5.3% and 8.4% ( P =0.024). After PSM and IPTW, RaTME remained associated with higher ISR rates (4.5% versus 9.4%, P =0.022 after PSM; 4.9% versus 9.2, P =0.005 after IPTW). This association remained in multivariate analysis after adjusting for other confounding factors. RaTME was further associated with a higher CAA rate, longer operating time, and higher hospitalization expenses. RaTME may facilitate ISR in middle and low rectal cancers, showing an independent association with a higher ISR incidence, with pathological outcomes and complications comparable to those of LaTME. However, it may also require a longer operating time and incur higher hospitalization expenses.

Sphincter-preserving effect of robotic-assisted intersphincteric resection for ultra-low rectal cancer: a propensity score matching analysis.

Intersphincteric resection (ISR) is a viable option for sphincter preservation in early ultra-low rectal cancer, but postoperative anal dysfunction remains a concern. This study evaluates the outcomes of robotic ISR with coloanal anastomosis in early ultra-low rectal cancer, comparing its efficacy and safety with laparoscopic ISR. Retrospective analysis was conducted on data from 74 consecutive patients undergoing robotic intersphincteric resection (R-ISR) for early ultra-low rectal cancer between January 2017 and December 2018 (R-ISR group), matched with 110 patients undergoing laparoscopic intersphincteric resection (L-ISR). After 1:1 propensity score matching, each group comprised 68 patients. Comparative analyses covered surgical outcomes, complications, long-term results, and anal function. The R-ISR group showed longer total operative time than the L-ISR group (211.7 ± 25.3min vs. 191.2 ± 23.0min, p = 0.001), but less intraoperative bleeding (55.2 ± 20.7ml vs. 69.2 ± 22.9ml, p = 0.01). R-ISR group had fewer conversions to APR surgery (6/8.8% vs. 14/20.6%). Other perioperative indicators were similar. R-ISR exhibited a smaller tumor margin, superior mesorectal integrity, and comparable histopathological outcomes. Postoperative complications, 3-year and 5-year DFS, and OS were similar. At the 1-year follow-up, the Wexner Incontinence Score favored R-ISR (9.24 ± 4.03 vs. 11.06 ± 3.77, p = 0.048). Although R-ISR prolongs the operative time, its surgical safety and oncological outcomes are similar to conventional ISR procedures. Furthermore, it further shortens the margin of anal preservation, reduces the rate of conversion to APR surgery, and improves postoperative anal function.

Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision With Delayed Coloanal Anastomosis (TaTME-DCAA) Versus Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision (LTME) and Robotic Total Mesorectal Excision (RTME) for Low Rectal Cancer: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of Short-term Outcomes, Bowel Function, and Cost.

Total mesorectal excision (TME) with delayed coloanal anastomosis (DCAA) is surgical option for low rectal cancer, replacing conventional immediate coloanal anastomosis (ICAA) with bowel diversion. This study aimed to assess the outcomes of transanal TME (TaTME) with DCAA versus laparoscopic TME (LTME) with ICAA versus robotic TME (RTME) with ICAA. This was a retrospective propensity score-matched analysis of patients who underwent elective TaTME-DCAA between November 2021 and June 2022. Patients were propensity-score matched in a ratio of 1:3 to patients who underwent LTME-ICAA and RTME-ICAA from January 2019 to December 2020. Outcome measures were histopathologic results, postoperative morbidity, function, and inpatient costs. Twelve patients in the TaTME-DCAA group were compared with 36 patients in the LTME-ICAA and RTME-ICAA groups each after propensity score matching. Histopathologic results and postoperative morbidity rates were statistically similar. Overall stoma-related complication rates in the ICAA groups were 11%. Median total length of hospital stays for TME plus stoma reversal surgery was similar across all techniques (10 vs. 10 vs. 9 days; P=0.532). Despite a significantly shorter duration of follow-up, bowel function after TaTME-DCAA was comparable to that of LTME-ICAA and RTME-ICAA. Overall median inpatient costs of TaTME-DCAA were comparable to LTME-ICAA and significantly cheaper than RTME-ICAA ($31,087 vs. $29,927 vs. $36,750; P=0.002). TaTME with DCAA is a feasible and safe technique compared with other minimally invasive methods of TME, while avoiding bowel diversion and stoma-related complications, as well as comparing favorably in terms of overall hospitalization costs.

Insulated tip/needle-knife endoscopic stricturotomy is safe and effective for treatment of non-traversable anorectal strictures.

Background and study aims The treatment of anorectal strictures is particularly challenging and historically focused on surgical resection and/or diversion. There are a number of endoscopic options, but repeat interventions are common. The use of the needle knife stricturotomy technique as an alternative to surgery in the treatment of a variety of strictures has been described, but its use for the treatment of severe anorectal and anopouch strictures has not been studied. Patients and methods Our Inflammatory Bowel Disease department's records were queried to identify patients with endoscopic non-traversable anorectal/anopouch strictures. Consecutive patients that underwent insulated tip/needle-knife endoscopic stricturotomy treatment were included. Primary outcome was immediate traversability of the treated stricture by the endoscope. Other outcomes included need for reintervention, 30-day post-procedure events, and follow-up period events. Results All strictures were immediately successfully traversed following endoscopic stricturotomy treatment. The mean time to endoscopic reintervention was 5.3 months, with the majority of these patients undergoing repeat stricturotomy. Over a mean follow-up period of 12.8 months, two patients (8%) required surgical intervention (resection with coloanal anastomosis with a colostomy and complete proctectomy) for refractory stricture disease following initial endoscopic stricturotomy. Seven patients (29%) in our study have not required any further reintervention throughout the study period. There were no 30-day post-procedure adverse events and no adverse post-procedure events. Conclusions Endoscopic stricturotomy is safe and effective in treating severe anorectal/anopouch strictures.

Inter-Sphincteric Resection of Rectum for Ulcerated S-100 Negative Large Granular Cell Tumour

Non-neural granular cell tumor was first described in 1991 as an unusual primitive, polypoid variant of the conventional GCT (granular cell tumor). To date, this neoplasm remains as a rare entity and the cell of origin is uncertain. While the histological features are similar to the conventional (traditional) GCTs, it represents a distinct entity, as it is negative for S-100 and lacks true nerve sheath differentiation. We report here a case of a 49-year-old male patient with S-100 negative, vimentin positive large benign, ulcerated, bleeding non-neural GCT in the lower rectum. We confirmed the diagnosis histopathologically and immunohistochemically. We treated it by ISRR (Inter-Sphincteric Resection of Rectum) and primary colo-anal anastomosis. We find no other report of non-neural GCT located in the rectum in surgical literature. This is probably the first case of non-neural GCT identified in the rectum. This case report is presented here to document a non-neural GCT located in the rectum for the first time ever reported, and also to highlight the optimum best surgical approach, as we deemed here for this large ulcerated bleeding tumor in the rectum. This rectal non-neural GCT posed here as an unusual differential diagnosis from such more common neoplastic bleeding lesions in the rectum as carcinoma rectum, hemorrhoid, rectal polyp, etc. Here we like to discuss our experience, reviewing in brief the available literature implicating the biological behavior, histopathological and immunohistochemical features, differential diagnosis and therapeutic considerations of neural and non-neural GCTs. KYAMC Journal Volume: 14, No: 03, October 2023: 181-187.