Low Rectal Cancer Research Articles

New Scale Predicting Distant Recurrence in Locally Advanced Lower Rectal Cancer Patients After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy.

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) for locally advanced lower rectal cancer (LALRC) is effective in preventing locoregional recurrence; however, it is less effective for preventing distant recurrence. This study aimed to evaluate a new scale for predicting distant recurrence before administering nCRT. Sixty-three patients underwent nCRT for LALRC between 2009 and 2016 at the Tokyo Women's Medical University. Of these, 51 consecutive patients who underwent curative surgery were enrolled in this study. Patients with ≥cT3 status or cN-positive LALRC were classified into three groups before nCRT based on the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio (LMR): high-risk, NLR ≥3.2 and LMR <5.0; intermediate-risk, NLR <3.2 and LMR ≥5.0 or NLR ≥3.2 and LMR <5.0; and low-risk, NLR <3.2 and LMR ≥5.0. Independent risk factors associated with distant relapse-free survival were analysed using the Cox proportional hazards model. Relapse-free survival from distant metastasis was evaluated using the log-rank test. Patient characteristics and tumour-associated factors were not significantly different between the groups. Distant recurrence in the high-, intermediate-, and low-risk groups was 61.5%, 42.9%, and 20.8% (p=0.046), respectively. In the multivariate analysis, the new scale was an independent risk factor for distant relapse-free survival (high-risk vs. low-risk groups, p=0.004 and intermediate-risk vs. low-risk groups, p=0.055). The 3-year distant relapse-free survival rate in the high-, intermediate-, and low-risk groups was 38.5%, 56.3%, and 81.7% (p=0.028), respectively. A new scale combining the pre-nCRT NLR and LMR was independently associated with distant relapse-free survival. The new scale for LALRC may aid selection for total neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Transanal Conformal Resection Is Associated with a Better Postoperative Anorectal Function Compared with Intersphincteric Resection for Low Rectal Cancer

Transanal Conformal Resection Is Associated with a Better Postoperative Anorectal Function Compared with Intersphincteric Resection for Low Rectal Cancer

Propensity score-matched analysis of the short-term outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer.

The advantages of robot-assisted rectal surgery (RARS) over conventional laparoscope-assisted rectal surgery (LARS) remain controversial. This study was performed to compare the short-term outcomes of RARS and LARS. We retrospectively analyzed data of 207 patients who had undergone either RARS (n = 97) or LARS (n = 110) for rectal cancer (RC) from 2018 to 2020. A 1:1 matched propensity score-matched analysis was performed and the surgical outcomes of the two groups compared. After matching, a well-balanced cohort of 136 patients was analyzed (n = 68 in each group), and there was no significant difference in the median operative time. The RARS group had less intraoperative blood loss than the LARS group. There were no significant differences in length of postoperative hospital stay or complication rate between the two groups. In the subgroup of lower RC, defined as the inferior edge of the tumor being within the rectum distal to the peritoneal reflection, the rate of sphincter preservation was higher in the RARS group (81.8% vs. 44.4%, p = 0.021). This study shows that RARS is a safe and feasible approach for RC compared with LARS, RARS having the advantage of more often preserving the sphincter.

Lateral pelvic lymphadenectomy for low rectal cancer

Background: Uncertainty exists regarding importance of lateral pelvic lymph node metastases in advanced low rectal cancer. Our research identified LPLD-related oncological prognosis in studied cases with rectal cancer below peritoneal reflection. Methods: We examined studied cases at Al Haram Hospital who received LPLD between May 2015 and December 2020 &amp; had clinical stage II-III low rectal cancer below peritoneal reflection. Results: there had been no correlation among pelvic LN &amp; colonoscopy &amp; there had been no correlation among pelvic LN &amp; pathology. Conclusion: When compared to entire mesorectal excision alone, lateral pelvic lymph node dissection had not been significantly related with decrease in recurrence rates or enhancement in survival; nevertheless, LPLND had been linked to higher complication rate. Key words: Lateral pelvic lymph node dissection. Local recurrence, Rectal cancer, Surgical strategies, Surgical outcomes, Survival outcomes.

Intersphincteric resection and coloanal anastomosis in the treatment of distal rectal cancers

ObjectiveIn the evolving era of minimal access surgery, low rectal cancers still pose a challenge to laparoscopic or robotic surgeons. Hence, at our institute we intended to demonstrate the oncological efficacy of intersphincteric resection and coloanal anastomosis in the treatment of distal rectal cancers, performing the abdominal part of the procedure which includes rectal mobilization, laparoscopically. MethodsFrom February 2017 to March 2021, 125 patients who had undergone intersphincteric resection and coloanal anastomosis via the perineal approach at Galaxy Care Laparoscopic Institute, Pune, were included in this study. Transabdominal mobilization of the rectum was performed laparoscopically. All patients had a diversion ileostomy and a pelvic drain. Patients were followed-up for a period of 18 months post-surgery. Data on clinical and oncological outcomes were collected and analysed. The pre-operative and post-operative Wexner incontinence scores were compared. ResultsThe mean time taken for surgery was 181.57 ± 30.00 min. The mean blood loss was 119.76 ± 42.53 mL. Most patients (103, 82.4%) had their tumour at a distance of 1–2 cm from the anal verge. A loco-regional recurrence rate of 12.8% (16/125) was noted in our study. For the post-surgery Wexner score, 74.4% of patients (93/125) had a score of 5 or less, depicting that three-quarters of the study population had satisfactory continence. Overall, 81.6% of patients were satisfied with the functional results of surgery. ConclusionIntersphincteric resection and coloanal anastomosis, with a 12.8% recurrence rate, can now be considered an oncological and technically feasible procedure with sphincter salvage and good continence.

The impact of mesorectal fat area on recurrence following total mesorectal excision for lower rectal cancer.

The mesorectal fat area (MFA) at the tip of the ischial spines on magnetic resonance imaging has been used to characterize mesorectal morphology. Recent studies reported that a larger MFA correlated with difficulties in rectal cancer surgery. However, the relationship between MFA and rectal cancer prognosis remains unclear. This study evaluated the impact of MFA on recurrence following robotic total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer. Patients who underwent robotic TME for lower rectal cancer from December 2011 to December 2016 were enrolled. Cox regression analysis was performed to determine variables associated with relapse-free survival (RFS). Patients were divided into groups based on MFA, and RFS was compared. Of 230 patients, 173 (75.3%) were male. The median age was 63years, and median MFA was 19.7 cm2. In multivariate analysis, smaller MFA (hazard ratio [HR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88-0.97; p < 0.01), p/yp stage II (HR, 3.81; 95% CI, 1.40-10.35; p < 0.01), and p/yp stage III (HR, 5.35; 95% CI, 1.88-15.27; p < 0.01) were independently associated with worse RFS. Sex, body mass index, and visceral fat area were not correlated with RFS. In the median follow-up period of 60.8months, patients with MFA < 19.7 cm2 had a significantly lower 5-year RFS rate (72.7%) than those with MFA ≥ 19.7 cm2 (85.0%). Smaller MFA was associated with worse RFS in patients undergoing robotic TME for lower rectal cancer. MFA is considered to be a prognostic factor in rectal cancer.

Transanal lateral lymph node dissection with intraoperative hologram support in low rectal cancer.

In Japan, the standard treatment for stage II/III advanced low rectal cancer is total mesorectal excision plus lateral lymph node dissection (LLND). There are also recent reports on the use of transanal LLND. However, the transanal anatomy is difficult to understand, and additional support tools are required to improve the surgical safety. The present study examined the utility of holograms with mixed reality as an intraoperative support tool for assessing the complex pelvic anatomy. Polygon (stereolithography) files of patients' pelvic organs were created and exported from the SYNAPSE VINCENT imaging system and uploaded into the Holoeyes MD virtual reality software. Three-dimensional images were automatically converted into patient-specific holograms. Each hologram was then installed into a head mount display (HoloLens2), and the surgeons and assistants wore the HoloLens2 when they performed transanal LLND. Twelve digestive surgeons with prior practice in hologram manipulation evaluated the utility of the intraoperative hologram support by means of a questionnaire. Intraoperative hologram support improved the surgical understanding of the lateral lymph node region anatomy. In the questionnaire, 75% of the surgeons answered that the hologram accurately reflected the anatomy, and 92% of the surgeons answered that the anatomy was better understood by simulating the hologram intraoperatively than preoperatively. Moreover, 92% of the surgeons agreed that intraoperative holograms were a useful support tool for improving the surgical safety. Intraoperative hologram support improved the surgical understanding of the pelvic anatomy for transanal LLND. Intraoperative holograms may represent a next-generation surgical tool for transanal LLND.

Ghost Ileostomy Versus Loop Ileostomy Following Oncologic Resection for Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

The aim of this study was to compare ghost ileostomy (GI) and loop ileostomy (LI) in patients undergoing oncologic resection for rectal cancer in terms of postoperative morbidity. LIs are often fashioned to protect downstream anastomoses following oncologic resection for low rectal cancer at medium-to-high risk of anastomotic leak. More recently, GIs have been utilized in patients with low-to-medium risk anastomoses to reduce the rate of unnecessary stomas. Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL were systematically searched. Studies investigating the use of GI in patients undergoing oncologic resection for rectal cancer were included. The primary outcomes were anastomotic leak and postoperative morbidity. Secondary outcomes included stoma-related complications and length of stay (LOS). Pairwise meta-analyses were performed with inverse variance random effects. From 242 citations, 14 studies with 946 patients were included. In comparative studies, 359 patients were undergoing GI and 266 patients were undergoing LI. Pairwise meta-analysis revealed no differences in the prevalence of anastomotic leak (OR 1.40, 95%CI .73-2.68, P = .31), morbidity (OR .76, 95%CI .44-1.30, P = .32), or LOS (SMD -.05, 95%CI -.33-.23, P = .72). International Study Group of Rectal Cancer anastomotic leak grades were as follows: Grade A (GI 0% vs LI 13.3%), Grade B (GI 80.9% vs LI 86.7%), Grade C (GI 19.1% vs LI 0%). GI appears to be a safe alternative to LI following oncologic resection for rectal cancer. Larger, prospective comparative studies are warranted to evaluate the use of GI in patients deemed to be at low-to-medium risk of anastomotic leak.

Partial mesorectal excision can be a primary option for middle rectal cancer: a propensity score-matched retrospective analysis.

Although partial mesorectal excision (PME) and total mesorectal excision (TME) is primarily indicated for the upper and lower rectal cancer, respectively, few studies have evaluated whether PME or TME is more optimal for middle rectal cancer. This study included 671 patients with middle and upper rectal cancer who underwent robot-assisted PME or TME. The 2 groups were optimized by propensity score matching of sex, age, clinical stage, tumor location, and neoadjuvant treatment. Complete mesorectal excision was achieved in 617 of 671 patients (92.0%), without showing a difference between the PME and TME groups. Local recurrence rate (5.3% vs. 4.3%, P>0.999) and systemic recurrence rate (8.5% vs. 16.0%, P=0.181) also did not differ between the 2 groups, in patients with middle and upper rectal cancer. The 5-year disease-free survival (81.4% vs. 74.0%, P=0.537) and overall survival (88.0% vs. 81.1%, P=0.847) also did not differ between the PME and TME groups, confined to middle rectal cancer. Moreover, 5-year recurrence and survival rates were not affected by distal resection margins of 2 cm (P=0.112) to 4 cm (P>0.999), regardless of pathological stages. Postoperative complication rate was higher in the TME than in the PME group (21.4% vs. 14.5%, P=0.027). Incontinence was independently associated with TME (odds ratio [OR], 2.009; 95% confidence interval, 1.015-3.975; P=0.045), along with older age (OR, 4.366, P<0.001) and prolonged operation time (OR, 2.196; P=0.500). PME can be primarily recommended for patients with middle rectal cancer with lower margin of >5 cm from the anal verge.

Lateral pelvic sentinel lymph node biopsy using indocyanine green fluorescence navigation: can it be a powerful supplement tool for predicting the status of lateral pelvic lymph nodes in advanced lower rectal cancer

An innovative instrument for laparoscopy using indocyanine green (ICG) allows easy detection of sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) in lateral pelvic lymph nodes (LPLNs). Here, we investigated the safety and efficacy of lateral pelvic SLN biopsy (SLNB) using ICG fluorescence navigation in advanced lower rectal cancer and evaluated the sensitivity and specificity of this technique to predict the status of LPLN. From April 1, 2017 to December 1, 2020, we conducted lateral pelvic SLNB using ICG fluorescence navigation during laparoscopic total mesorectal excision and lateral pelvic lymph node dissection (LLND) in 23 patients with advanced low rectal cancer who presented with LPLN but without LPLN enlargement. Data regarding clinical characteristics, surgical and pathological outcomes, lymph node findings, and postoperative complications were collected and analyzed. We successfully performed the surgery using fluorescence navigation. One patient underwent bilateral LLND and 22 patients underwent unilateral LLND. The lateral pelvic SLN were clearly fluorescent before dissection in 21 patients. Lateral pelvic SLN metastasis was diagnosed in 3 patients and negative in 18 patients by frozen pathological examination. Among the 21 patients in whom lateral pelvic SLN was detected, the dissected lateral pelvic non-SLNs were all negative. All dissected LPLNs were negative in two patients without fluorescent lateral pelvic SLN. This study indicated that lateral pelvic SLNB using ICG fluorescence navigation shows promise as a safe and feasible procedure for advanced lower rectal cancer with good accuracy, and no false-negative cases were found. No metastasis in SLNB seemed to reflect all negative LPLN metastases, and this technique can replace preventive LLND for advanced lower rectal cancer.

Feasibility and safety of robotic surgery for low rectal cancer combined with transanal total mesorectal excision

PurposeLaparoscopic surgery for low rectal cancer is often challenging. Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) and robotic surgery have been introduced to overcome the technical difficulties in laparoscopic surgery and achieve more favorable outcomes. Hybrid robotic surgery, which combines TaTME with the abdominal robotic approach, incorporates the advantages of each of these surgical techniques and might achieve less invasive and safer surgery. This study evaluated the safety and feasibility of hybrid robotic surgery with TaTME (hybrid TaTME).MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed 162 TaTME cases performed at our department from September 2016 to May 2022. Among them, 92 cases of conventional TaTME and 30 of hybrid TaTME were eligible. We used propensity score matching analysis (PSM) to adjust for patients’ characteristics and compared the short-term outcomes of the two treatment groups.ResultsTwenty-seven cases in each group were extracted using PSM. The operation time in hybrid TaTME was comparable to that in conventional TaTME. There was no significant difference in the postoperative hospital stay between the two groups. Other intra- and post-operative outcomes were also comparable between the two groups. Furthermore, no significant differences were observed between the two groups in the curative resection and recurrence rates.ConclusionHybrid TaTME for low rectal cancer was as favorable as conventional TaTME in producing satisfactory short-term outcomes. However, furthermore, larger-scale studies conducted over longer study periods are needed to evaluate the validity of the findings.

Two-team lateral lymph node dissection assisted by the transanal approach for locally advanced lower rectal cancer: comparison with the conventional transabdominal approach.

An optimal surgical approach to lateral lymph node dissection (LLND) remains controversial. With the recent popularity of transanal total mesorectal excision, a two-team procedure combining the transabdominal and transanal approaches was established as a novel approach to LLND. This study aimed to clarify the safety and feasibility of two-team LLND (2team-LLND) and compare its short-term outcomes with those of conventional transabdominal LLND (Conv-LLND). Between April 2013 and March 2020, 463 patients diagnosed with primary locally advanced rectal cancer underwent a transanal total mesorectal excision; among them, 93 patients who underwent bilateral prophylactic LLND were included in this single-center, retrospective study. Among these patients, 50 and 43 patients underwent Conv-LLND (the Conv-LLND group) and 2team-LLND (the 2team-LLND group), respectively. The short-term outcomes, including the operation time, blood loss volume, number of complications, and number of harvested lymph nodes, were compared between the two groups. The intraoperative and postoperative complications in the 2team-LLND group were equivalent to those in the Conv-LLND group; furthermore, the incidence of postoperative urinary retention in the 2team-LLND group was acceptably low (9%). Compared with the Conv-LLND group, the 2team-LLND group had a significantly shorter operation time (P = 0.003), lower median blood loss (P = 0.02), and higher number of harvested lateral lymph nodes (P = 0.0005). The intraoperative and postoperative complications of 2team-LLND were comparable with those of Conv-LLND. Thus, 2team-LLND was safe and feasible for advanced lower rectal cancer. Moreover, it was superior to Conv-LLND in terms of the operation time, blood loss volume, and number of harvested lateral lymph nodes. Therefore, it can be a promising LLND approach.

Single-stapled anastomosis is associated with a lower anastomotic leak rate than double-stapled technique after minimally invasive total mesorectal excision for MRI-defined low rectal cancer

BackgroundAfter total mesorectal excision, distal rectal transection and anastomosis are critical for short-term, oncological, and functional outcomes, including anastomotic leak. A double-pursestring, single-stapled anastomosis avoids cross-stapling, overcoming the potential drawbacks of transabdominal rectal transection and double-stapled anastomosis. This study aims to compare the anastomotic leak rate in double-stapled and single-stapled anastomoses after minimally invasive total mesorectal excision for magnetic resonance imaging–defined low rectal cancer. MethodsAdult patients (>18 years old) undergoing minimally invasive total mesorectal excision for magnetic resonance imaging–defined low rectal cancer with a stapled low anastomosis (below 5 centimeters from the anal verge) between January 2010 and January 2022 at a single institution were allocated to 2 groups according to the anastomosis: double-stapled (abdominal stapled transection and double-stapled anastomosis) or single-stapled (transanal rectal transection and double-pursestring single-stapled anastomosis). The exclusion criteria were nonrestorative procedures or any type of manual anastomosis. The primary endpoint was the rate of 90-day clinical and radiologic anastomotic leak. ResultsIn total, 185 single-stapled and 458 double-stapled were included. Clinical and tumor characteristics were comparable between the groups. The 90-day anastomotic leak rate was significantly lower in the single-stapled group (6.48% vs 15.28%; P = .002), with similar rates of grade and timing. Thirty- and 90-day complication rates were higher in the double-stapled group (P = .0001; P = .02), with comparable Clavien-Dindo grades. At multivariable analysis, double-stapled anastomosis (P = .01), active smoking (P = .03), and the presence of comorbidities (P = .01) resulted as independent risk factors for an anastomotic leak. ConclusionTransanal transection and double-pursestring, single-stapled anastomosis were associated with a lower anastomotic leak rate after minimally invasive total mesorectal excision for magnetic resonance imaging–defined low rectal cancer.

Patterns of Care and Outcomes of Rectal Cancer Patients from the Iowa Cancer Registry: Role of Hospital Volume and Tumor Location

BackgroundCentralization of rectal cancer surgery has been associated with high-quality oncologic care. However, several patient, disease and system-related factors can impact where patients receive care. We hypothesized that patients with low rectal tumors would undergo treatment at high-volume centers and would be more likely to receive guideline-based multidisciplinary treatment. MethodsAdults who underwent proctectomy for stage II/III rectal cancer were included from the Iowa Cancer Registry and supplemented with tumor location data. Multinomial logistic regression was employed to analyze factors associated with receiving care in high-volume hospital, while logistic regression for those associated with ≥ 12 lymph node yield, pre-operative chemoradiation and sphincter-preserving surgery. ResultsOf 414 patients, 38%, 39%, and 22% had low, mid, and high rectal cancers, respectively. Thirty-two percent were > 65 years, 38% female, and 68% had stage III tumors. Older age and rural residence, but not tumor location, were associated with surgical treatment in low-volume hospitals. Higher tumor location, high-volume, and NCI-designated hospitals had higher nodal yield (≥ 12). Hospital-volume was not associated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation rates or circumferential resection margin status. Sphincter-sparing surgery was independently associated with high tumor location, female sex, and stage III cancer, but not hospital volume. ConclusionsLow tumor location was not associated with care in high-volume hospitals. High-volume and NCI-designated hospitals had higher nodal yields, but not significantly higher neoadjuvant chemoradiation, negative circumferential margin, or sphincter preservation rates. Therefore, providing educational/quality improvement support in lower volume centers may be more pragmatic than attempting to centralize rectal cancer care among high-volume centers.

The Effectiveness and Safety of Rectal Modular Resection in Low Rectal Cancer: A Retrospective Study.

Background: Described by Heald in 1982, total mesorectal excision (TME) is now routinely performed as the standard procedure for mid-low rectal cancer, with remarkable decrease in local recurrence and improved oncology outcome. However, the integrity of the resected mesentery and damage to autonomic nerves still remain challenging for general surgeons, especially in the cohort of neoadjuvant therapy patients. The concept of rectal modular resection (RMR), based on an integral understanding of the regional anatomy, was proposed as a surgical skill for dissociation of the rectum with shorter surgical duration, function preservation, and improved oncology outcome. Methods: This was a retrospective trial. Patients with resectable rectal lesions, ranging between 3 and 7 cm from the anal verge, were enrolled and grouped by TME surgery based on RMR or classical procedure resection (CPR). We estimated perioperative outcomes, including surgery complications such as anastomotic leak, urine retention, and others. Pathological properties, including distal clearance, harvested lymph nodes, tumor differentiation, and specimen grading, were also taken into account. Patients were followed postoperatively and functional evaluation was recorded at the 3-month and 1-year postoperation visits. Results: From January 2019 to December 2021, a total of 92 patients were enrolled in this study. TME surgery complying with the RMR methodology was performed with a back-to-bilateral-to-front modular proceeding. Duration of operation was significantly shortened in the RMR group, without increase in blood loss or failure rate of anus preservation. The quality of the specimen, graded according to integrity of the mesorectum, stands out in the RMR group. Functional evaluation revealed no statistical difference between RMR and CPR groups regarding sexual ability impairment and defecation disorder since follow-up is still ongoing. Conclusions: RMR-based TME was efficient with compressed operation duration compared with CPR and its safety was well validated with regard to the occurrence of complications and function loss.

Comparison between preoperative chemoradiotherapy and lateral pelvic lymph node dissection in clinical T3 low rectal cancer without enlarged lateral lymph nodes.

The standard strategy for clinical T3 rectal cancer without enlarged lateral lymph nodes is preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) followed by total mesorectal excision (TME) in Western countries and TME with bilateral lateral pelvic lymph node dissection (LPLND) in Japan. This study compared surgical, pathological and oncological results of these two strategies. Patients who underwent preoperative CRT followed by TME in France (CRT + TME group) and those who underwent TME with LPLND in Japan (TME + LPLND group) for clinical T3 rectal adenocarcinoma without enlarged lateral lymph nodes from 2010 to 2016 were retrospectively analysed. In total, 439 patients were included in this study. The estimated local recurrence rate (LRR), disease-free survival and overall survival at 5 years post-surgery was 4.9%, 71% and 82% in the CRT + TME group, and 8.6%, 75% and 90% in the TME + LPLND group, respectively. Lateral LRR versus non-lateral LRR was 0.5% versus 4.2% in the CRT + TME group and 1.8% versus 6.2% in the TME + LPLND group. Obturator nerve injury and isolated pelvic abscess were shown only in the TME + LPLND group. Urinary complications were more frequent in the TME + LPLND group than in the CRT + TME group. Disease-free survival was not significantly different after TME with LPLND and after CRT followed by TME. LRR was not significantly different after both strategies; however, there was a trend for higher LRR after TME with LPLND than after CRT followed by TME. Obturator nerve injury, isolated lateral pelvic abscess and urinary complications should be noted when TME with LPLND is applied.

Interaction between the intestinal flora and the severity of diversion colitis after low anterior resection of rectal cancer.

Diversion colitis (DC) is nonspecific inflammation of the distal intestinal mucosa following disruption of colonic continuity with colonic dysfunction. The colonscopic score is a good tool for differentiating the severity of patients with DC. At present, no studies have analyzed the pathogenesis of DC from the perspective of the diversity and and differences of intestinal flora. Retrospective study: Clinical information were collected from patients with low rectal cancer admitted to the Department of Anorectal Surgery, Changzheng Hospital, from April 2017 to April 2019. These patients underwent laparoscopic low anterior resection (LAR) combined with terminal ileum enterostomy (dual-chamber). We used chi-square test to comparethe clinical baseline information, clinical symptoms, and colonscopic characteristics between different severity of DC. Propsective oberservational study: We recruited 40 patients with laparoscopic anterior low resection combined with terminal ileum enterostomy and they were further classified into mild group and severe group according to the scores of colonscopic examinations for DC. 16s-rDNA sequencing was carried out to analyze the diversity and and differences of intestinal flora in the intestinal lavage fluid of the two groups. In retrospective study, we found that age, BMI, history of diabetes, and symptoms associated with the stoma state were the independent risk factors that affect DC severity (P<0.05). Meanwhile, age, BMI, history of diabetes and colonscopic score were found to be independent risk factors affecting the severity of diarrhea after ileostomy closure surgery(P<0.05), which was consistent with our results of differentiating the severity of DC under endoscopy; In propsective oberservational study, 40 patients with low rectal cancer recruited by sample size calculation, 23 were in the mild group and 17 in the severe group. The results of 16s-rDNA sequencing showed that intestinal flora with high enrichment values primarily consisted of Bifidobacteriales and Prevotella in mild group, whereas that in the severe group consisted of Providencia and Dorea. The functional predictions on such two types of intestinal flora were mainly focused on lipid synthesis, glycan synthesis, metabolism, and amino acid metabolism pathways. After ileostomy closure surgery, a series of severe clinical symptoms might appear in DC patients. There are significant differences in local and systemic inflammatory responses, composition of intestinal flora between DC patients with different colonscopic scores, which provide a basis for the clinical interventional treatment for DC in patients with permanent stoma.

Single-center comparative study of short-term outcomes of transanal and laparoscopic total mesorectal excisions for low and middle rectal cancers.

Transanal total mesorectal excision is a promising surgical treatment for rectal cancer. However, evidence regarding the differences in outcomes between the transanal and laparoscopic total mesorectal excisions is scarce. We compared the short-term outcomes of transanal and laparoscopic total mesorectal excisions for low and middle rectal cancers. This retrospective study included patients who underwent low anterior or intersphincteric resection for middle (5-10cm) or low (< 5cm) rectal cancer at the National Cancer Center Hospital East, Japan, from May 2013 to March 2020. Primary rectal adenocarcinoma was confirmed histologically. Circumferential resection margins (CRMs) of resected specimens were measured; margins ≤ 1mm were considered positive. The operative time, blood loss, hospitalization length, postoperative readmission rate, and short-term treatment results were compared. Four hundred twenty-nine patients were divided into two mesorectal excision groups: transanal (n = 295) and laparoscopic (n = 134). Operative times were significantly shorter in the transanal group than in the laparoscopic group (p < 0.001). The pathological T stage and N status were not significantly different. The transanal group had significantly lower positive CRM rates (p = 0.04), and significantly lower incidence of the Clavien-Dindo grade III (p = 0.02) and IV (p = 0.03) complications. Both groups had distal margin positivity rates of 0%. Compared to laparoscopic, transanal total mesorectal excision for low and middle rectal cancers has lower incident postoperative complication and CRM-positivity rates, demonstrating the safety and usefulness of local curability for middle and low rectal cancers.

Comparison of the clinical efficacy of laparoscopic extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) and non-ELAPE for low rectal cancer.

This study was performed to retrospectively analyze and compare the related clinical indicators between extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) and non-ELAPE under laparoscopic for low rectal cancer. From June 2018 to September 2021, a total of 80 patients with low rectal cancer who underwent either of the above two types of surgeries at our Hospital were enrolled. Patients were divided into the ELAPE group and non-ELAPE group based on the different surgical methods. Preoperative general indicators, intraoperative indicators, postoperative complications, positive circumferential resection margin rate, local recurrence rate, hospital stay length, hospital expenses, and other related indicators were compared between the two groups. There were no significant differences in the comparison of preoperative indexes between the ELAPE group and non-ELAPE group, including age, preoperative BMI, and gender. Similarly, there were no significant differences in abdominal operation time, total operation time, and the number of intraoperative lymph nodes dissected between the two groups. However, the perineal operation time, intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative perforation rate, and positive circumferential resection margin rate were significantly different between the two groups. In the comparison of postoperative indexes, perineal complications, postoperative hospital stay length, and IPSS score were significantly different between the two groups. The use of ELAPE in treating T3-4NxM0 phase low rectal cancer was superior to non-ELAPE in reducing intraoperative perforation rate, positive circumferential resection margin rate, local recurrence rate, etc.

Comment on: Intracorporeal Versus Extracorporeal Anastomosis in Robotic Right Colectomy: A Multicenter, Triple-Blind, Randomized Clinical Trial.

We would like to thank Dohrn et al1 for their randomized controlled trial comparing intracorporeal anastomosis (ICA) with specimen extraction through a Pfannenstiel incision with extracorporeal anastomosis (ECA) with specimen extraction through a transverse right upper quadrant incision in patients undergoing robotic right hemicolectomy (rRHC). The authors state that the main advantage of ICA during rRHC is that it allows for specimen extraction through a Pfannenstiel incision with, as a corollary, reduced postoperative pain and therefore improved postoperative recovery. To this end, they performed a sample size calculation based on the “Quality of Recovery-15” (QoR-15) questionnaire, which is a patient-reported composite outcome. Unfortunately, the trial was not powered on the semiquantitative assessment of postoperative pain or on any objective measurement of postoperative recovery. Second, the main advantage of the robotic approach for RHC is the improved possibility of performing ICA and choosing a Pfannenstiel incision as the extraction site when compared to laparoscopy. Performing ECA during rRHC offers, to our opinion, absolutely no advantage over ICA, and we therefore question the pertinence of the comparison chosen by the authors, especially when considering the increased cost of the robotic approach. A Pfannenstiel incision is more discreet that a right upper quadrant incision, and is esthetically preferred by patients. On this aspect, we note that the esthetical scoring of the extraction site was not considered in the outcomes and was not included in the QoR-15 questionnaire. Moreover, Pfannenstiel incisions have lower incidence of incisional hernia than transverse right upper quadrant incisions (0.9% vs 3.7%),2 which may support ICA over ECA from both a medical point of view but also an economical point of view. This outcome was not assessed in the trial. Finally, we note that a significant proportion of eligible patients were not randomized and that recruitment was paused during 1 year due to the unavailability of qualified surgeons. However, no threshold of experience was set. We believe it would have been preferable to set a threshold in terms of experience, or to audit the surgical procedures as performed for example in the robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for middle and low rectal cancer trial.3 For instance, it was shown that the results of the Robotic-Assisted versus conventional Laparoscopic surgery on risk of conversion to open laparotomy Among patients undergoing Resection for Rectal cancer trial4 were potentially biased by the experience of participating surgeons.5,6 To conclude, we believe that, despite the results of this randomized controlled trial, ICA should be preferred over ECA during rRHC. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS J.M. conceived and designed the study. All authors interpreted the data and contributed to the writing of the draft manuscript. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript.