Sphincter Preservation For Rectal Cancer Research Articles

Permanent stoma after sphincter preservation for rectal cancer. A situation that occurs more often than you might think.

This study aimed: (i) to assess the cumulative incidence of permanent stoma (PS) after sphincter-preserving surgery (SPS) for rectal cancer (RC): (ii) to analyze associated risk factors for primary and secondary PS; and (iii) to compare the long-term survival of patients according to the stoma state. We conducted a retrospective single-center cohort study based on a prospectively maintained database of SRC patients undergoing SPS from January 2007 to December 2017. Incidence of both primary (no reversal of defunctioning stoma) and secondary (created after closure of defunctioning stoma) PS were investigated. Associations between potential risk factors and PS were analyzed using a logistic regression model. Cumulative survival curve was drawn by Kaplan-Meier method. Of the 257 eligible patients, 43 patients (16.7%) had a PS (16 primary PS and 27 secondary PS) after a median follow-up of 4.8 years. In multivariate analysis, the independent risk factors for primary PS were severe post-operative complications (OR 3.66; 95% CI, 1.19-11.20, p=0.022), and old age (OR 1.11; 95% CI 1.04-1.18, p=0.001) and those for secondary PS were local recurrence (OR 38.07; 95% CI 11.07-130.9, p<0.0001), anastomotic leakage (OR 7.01; 95% CI, 2.23-22.04, p=0.009), and severe post-operative complications (OR 3.67; 95% CI, 1.22-11.04, p=0.02), respectively. Both overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were significantly lower in patients with a PS compared with patients with SPS (p < 0.01). This present study suggests that one out of 6 patients has a PS, 5 years after rectal resection with SPS for SRC.

The impact of bowel dysfunction on health-related quality of life after rectal cancer surgery: a systematic review.

Symptoms of bowel dysfunction after sphincter-preserving rectal cancer surgery have an important impact on health-related quality of life (HRQOL), but that relationship is complex. A better understanding of this relationship allows for better informed shared decision-making about surgery. Our objective was to perform a systematic review to determine which HRQOL domains are most affected by postoperative bowel dysfunction. A systematic review of the CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Embase, Medline, PsycInfo, PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We included studies that evaluated bowel function after sphincter-preserving rectal cancer surgery and assessed HRQOL using a validated instrument. The quality of HRQOL analysis was assessed using an 11-item checklist. The main outcome was the impact bowel dysfunction had on global and domain specific quality-of-life indices. The impact was evaluated for clinical relevance using the Minimum Clinical Important Difference (MCID) for each specific HRQOL instrument. Out of 952 unique citations, 103 studies were full-text reviews. Eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria (4 prospective cohorts and 9 cross-sectional studies). Of the 15 studies with long-term follow-up, the time to assessment after surgery ranged from 1.2 to 14.6years. The low anterior resection syndrome score and European Organization for Research and Treatment core quality-of-life questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) were the most commonly used instruments. Medium and large magnitudes in MCID were seen for global health, social functioning, emotional functioning, fatigue, diarrhea, and financial difficulties. Among included studies, the most consistently reported functional domains affected by bowel function were social functioning and emotional functioning. Following sphincter-preserving rectal cancer surgery, poor bowel function mainly affects the social and emotional functional domains of HRQOL, which in turn impact global scores. This finding can help inform patients about expected changes in HRQOL after rectal cancer surgery and facilitate individualized treatment decisions.

Functional outcomes after sphincter-preserving surgeries for low-lying rectal cancer: A review

Sphincter preservation and organ restoration during rectal cancer surgery avoids permanent stoma creation and diminishes psychosocial damages. However, decreased rectal volumes and sphincter dysfunction—including pelvic nerve damage—results in low anterior resection syndrome, as well as urinary and sexual dysfunction after rectal resection. Bowel habit changes such as fecal incontinence, fecal urgency, frequent bowel movements, clustered stools, and difficulties in bowel emptying can be treated using medications, pelvic floor rehabilitation, sacral neuromodulation, or neorectal reservoir reconstruction. Pelvic nerve damage resulting from superior and inferior hypogastric plexi during sphincter-preserving rectal cancer surgery can induce urologic and sexual dysfunctions. Preoperative voiding difficulty, perioperative blood loss, and autonomic nerve injury are considered independent risk factors for postoperative urinary dysfunction. Retrograde ejaculation and erectile dysfunction, female dyspareunia, and vaginal dryness are manifestations of sexual dysfunction resulting from autonomic nerve injury during rectal cancer surgery. Multifactorial causes for functional outcomes after sphincter- preserving surgeries are considered to improve patient’s quality of life with acceptable oncologic outcomes in the treatment of rectal cancer patients.

Postoperative Bowel Function After Anal Sphincter-Preserving Rectal Cancer Surgery: Risks Factors, Diagnostic Modalities, and Management.

Low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) refers to a disturbance of bowel function that commonly manifests within 1 month after rectal cancer surgery. A low level of anastomosis and chemoradiotherapy have been consistently found to be risk factors for developing LARS. Thorough history taking and physical examination with adjunctive procedures are essential when evaluating patients with LARS. Anorectal manometry, fecoflowmetry, and validated questionnaires are important tools for assessing the quality of life of patients with LARS. Conservative management (medical, physiotherapy, transanal irrigation), invasive procedures (neuromodulation), and multimodal therapy are the mainstay of treatment for patients with LARS. A stoma could be considered when other treatment modalities have failed. An initial meticulous surgical procedure for rectal cancer, creation of a neorectal reservoir during anastomosis, and proper exercise of the anal sphincter muscle (Kegel’s maneuver) are essential to combat LARS. Pretreatment counseling is a crucial step for patients who have risk factors for developing LARS.

Quality of life with or without sphincter preservation for rectal cancer.

The aim of this investigation was to examine quality of life after surgical treatment for low rectal cancer. This was a population-based, cross-sectional study on quality of life in patients treated for rectal cancer from 2001 to 2007. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) and a single question on the impact of bowel/stoma function on quality of life were sent to patients who had undergone abdominoperineal excision (APE) or low anterior resection (LAR) for rectal cancer with tumours below 10cm from the anal verge. Informative answers were obtained from 898 patients (87%). EORTC QLQ-C30 outcomes were very similar for APE and LAR patients in univariate analysis. When adjusted for neoadjuvant radiotherapy and gender, multivariate analysis showed that LAR patients had lower global health status (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.03; 1.68, P=0.026) and higher occurrence of constipation (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.32; 0.69, P<0.001) and diarrhoea (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.35; 0.64, P<0.001). Analysis of the anchor question showed that LAR patients had significantly higher negative impact of bowel function on quality of life in both univariate (OR 3.38, 95% CI 2.62; 4.37, P<0.001) and multivariate analysis (OR 3.71, 95% CI 2.86; 4.83, P<0.001) compared with APE. For patients with low rectal cancer, we found LAR patients had worse global health status and problems with diarrhoea and constipation compared with APE patients.

Influence of social deprivation and remoteness on the likelihood of sphincter amputation for rectal cancer: a high-resolution population-based study.

Medical care in rectal cancer is subject to social inequality. According to the last French guidelines, a 1-cm distal margin below the lower pole of the rectal tumor is now considered sufficient. This extends the limits of the current sphincter preservation gold standard. Like for other innovative technics, the dissemination of such technics is often subject to social and geographical inequalities. The objective was to analyze whether sphincter preservation in rectal cancer is subject to social or geographical inequality. The odds of sphincter preservation was modeled by logistic regression among the 1453 patients in the Calvados digestive cancer registry between 1 January 1997 and 31 December 2015 by examining some of the variables that could influence it: social inequalities and geographical remoteness, sex, age, and stage. A total of 69.4% of the population received sphincter preservation. Patients in the more deprived quintiles had a significantly higher probability of having sphincter amputation (odds ratio (OR) = 1.469 (1.046-2.064)). This result was no longer significant after adjustment on stage and travel time. There was a dose-effect pattern of geographical remoteness on likelihood of sphincter preservation with a progressive increase in OR between patients living the nearest and the furthest from the reference center (p-trend= 0.0178). This study shows that the probability of receiving sphincter preservation is influenced by the social environment and strongly influenced by remoteness. Although management guidelines have had a huge impact on the rates of sphincter preservation, they have not reduced the influence of the social and geographical environment on sphincter preservation.

First, Do No Harm: Rethinking Routine Diversion in Sphincter-Preserving Rectal Cancer Resection

Although diverting stomas have reduced anastomotic leak rates after sphincter-preserving proctectomy in some series, the effectiveness of routine diversion among a broad population of rectal cancer patients remains controversial. We hypothesized that routine temporary diversion is not associated with decreased rates of leak or reintervention in cancer patients at large undergoing sphincter-sparing procedures. The Florida State Inpatient Database (AHRQ, Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project) was queried for patients undergoing sphincter-preserving proctectomy for cancer (2005 to 2014). Matched cohorts defined by diversion status were created using propensity scores based on patient and hospital characteristics. Incidence of anastomotic leak, nonelective reintervention, and readmission were compared, and cumulative 90-day inpatient costs were calculated. Of 8,620 eligible sphincter-sparing proctectomy patients, 1,992 matched pairs were analyzed. Leak rates did not significantly vary between groups (4.5% vs 4.3%; p= 0.76), but diversion was associated with significantly higher odds of nonelective reintervention (2.37; 95% CI 1.90 to 2.96) and readmission (1.55; 95% CI 1.33 to 1.81) compared with undiverted patients. Median costs were higher among those diverted (US$21,325 vs US$15,050; p < 0.01). No association between diversion and anastomotic leak was found. However, temporary diversion was associated with increased incidence of nonelective reinterventions, readmissions, and higher costs. We therefore challenge the paradigm of routine diversion in rectal cancer operations. Additional study is needed to identify which patients would benefit most from diversion.

The fate of preserved sphincter in rectal cancer patients.

Sphincter-saving surgery is widely accepted operative modality to treat rectal cancer. It often requires temporary diverting stoma to avoid the complications of anastomotic failure. This study investigates the cumulative failure rate in sphincter preservation for rectal cancer and the risk factors associated with the permanent stoma. A retrospective study on 358 patients diagnosed with primary rectal cancer from 2009 to 2013 was conducted at a single institute. Three hundred and thirty-one out of 358 patients with rectal cancer located within 12cm from the anal verge, who underwent sphincter-preserving surgery, were included in this study. The cumulative rate for permanent stoma was calculated. Univariate and multivariate analysis were performed, comparing the patients with stoma to the ones without. Temporary diverting stoma was created in 223 (82%) patients. After median follow-up of 42months, 18 patients (6.6%) persistently used temporary stoma or required re-creation of stoma. Univariate analysis revealed that BMI, tumor location below 4cm from the anal verge, coloanal anastomosis, anastomotic leakage, and local recurrence were significantly associated with persistent use or re-formation of stoma. Multivariate analysis showed that anastomotic leakage (OR 50.3; 95% CI, 10.1-250.1; p < 0.0001) and local recurrence (OR 11.3; 95% CI, 1.61-78.5; p = 0.015) were the independent risk factors. Patients with anastomotic leakage and local recurrence are at high risk for permanent stoma. Not only should patients be fully informed of possible failure in sphincter preservation preoperatively, but also patient-oriented decision should be made on patient-tailored surgical plan.

A Cross-Sectional Review of Reporting Variation in Postoperative Bowel Dysfunction After Rectal Cancer Surgery.

Postoperative bowel dysfunction affects quality of life after sphincter-preserving rectal cancer surgery, but the extent of the problem is not clearly defined because of inconsistent outcome measures used to characterize the condition. The purpose of this study was to assess variation in the reporting of postoperative bowel dysfunction and to make recommendations for standardization in future studies. If possible, a quantitative synthesis of bowel dysfunction symptoms was planned. MEDLINE and EMBASE databases, as well as the Cochrane Library, were queried systematically between 2004 and 2015. The studies selected reported at least 1 component of bowel dysfunction after resection of rectal cancer. The main outcome measures were reporting, measurement, and definition of postoperative bowel dysfunction. Of 5428 studies identified, 234 met inclusion criteria. Widely reported components of bowel dysfunction were incontinence to stool (227/234 (97.0%)), frequency (168/234 (71.8%)), and incontinence to flatus (158/234 (67.5%)). Urgency and stool clustering were reported less commonly, with rates of 106 (45.3%) of 234 and 61 (26.1%) of 234. Bowel dysfunction measured as a primary outcome was associated with better reporting (OR = 3.49 (95% CI, 1.99-6.23); p < 0.001). Less than half of the outcomes were assessed using a dedicated research tool (337/720 (46.8%)), and the remaining descriptive measures were infrequently defined (56/383 (14.6%)). Heterogeneity in the reporting, measurement, and definition of postoperative bowel dysfunction precluded pooling of results and limited interpretation. Considerable variation exists in the reporting, measurement, and definition of postoperative bowel dysfunction. These inconsistencies preclude reliable estimates of incidence and meta-analysis. A broadly accepted outcome measure may address this deficit in future studies.

Organ or sphincter preservation for rectal cancer. The role of contact X-ray brachytherapy in a monocentric series of 112 patients

BackgroundContact X-ray brachytherapy (CXB) has been used at Centre Antoine Lacassagne since 2002 to increase the chance of conservative treatment (organ or sphincter preservation) in rectal cancer. A consecutive series of 112 patients (pts) is reported. MethodsThree protocols were used in selected rectal adenocarcinomas. Group 1: T1 N0 treated with local excision (LE) followed by adjuvant CXB. Group 2: T2 or ‘early’ T3 N0 treated with CXB combined with chemoradiotherapy (CRT) followed by surveillance or LE. Group 3: distal ‘locally advanced’ T3 N0-2 treated with CXB and CRT before total proctectomy. ResultsGroup 1: 27 pt (pTis: 3; pT1: 21; pT2: 3). After LE with CXB alone (20 pt) or CXB + CRT (7 pt) one local recurrence occurred. Organ preservation was achieved in 26 pt (96%). Group 2: 45 pt (T1: 2; T2: 23; T3: 20) treated with CXB alone (4 pt) or CXB + CRT or external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) (41 pt). A clinical complete response (cCR) was observed in 43/45 (96%) and 3 pt developed a local recurrence (11% at 5 years). The specific survival was 76% at 5 years and the rate of organ preservation was 89% (40/45 pt) with good bowel function in 36 pt. Group 3: 40 pt, anterior resection (with sphincter preservation) was possible in 35 pt (86%) with a 3-year local recurrence of 6%. ConclusionCXB usually combined as a boost with CRT or EBRT may safely increase the chance of a conservative treatment (organ or sphincter preservation) for selected rectal cancers.

Minimally invasive surgery and sphincter preservation in rectal cancer

BackgroundNational adoption of sphincter-preserving surgery (SPS) and minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has not been well documented. We examined national trends in use of SPS and MIS. Materials and methodsThe National Inpatient Sample was used to evaluate open, laparoscopic, and robotic low anterior resection (LAR) or abdominoperineal resection (APR) for patients undergoing rectal cancer surgery from 2009 to 2011. Trends in SPS and MIS were stratified by hospital volume. Propensity score matching was used. ResultsA total of 24,999 (62.0%) patients underwent LAR, and 15,288 (38.0%) underwent APR from 2009 to 2011. A total of 22,310 (89.2%) LARs were open and 2689 (10.8%) MIS. A total of 11,600 (75.9%) APRs were open and 3688 (24.1%) MIS. Most procedures were at high-volume centers. In propensity-matched analysis, length of stay for LAR was longer in open surgery (6 versus 5 d; P = 0.01); in APR, MIS patients were less likely to have wound, infectious, urinary, and gastrointestinal complications, and length of stay was shorter (6 versus 8 d; P < 0.01). ConclusionsSPS and MIS rates have increased nationally, especially in high-volume centers. In addition, the perioperative benefits seen in randomized clinical trials are maintained in a national database. Further studies should focus on understanding differences in survival and oncologic outcomes with MIS techniques.

Quality of Life After Sphincter-Preserving Rectal Cancer Resection

BackgroundWith an increasing number of cancer survivors quality of life (QoL) becomes more and more important in the treatment of rectal cancer (RC). QoL after sphincter-preserving anterior resection (AR), however, was found nonsuperior to abdominoperineal resection. The aim of our study was to evaluate QoL after AR compared with colon cancer patients after right hemicolectomy (CC) and healthy lay persons without history of cancer (HL) in long-term follow-up. Patients and MethodsConsecutive alive RC patients (n = 293) who received an AR between 1998 and 2008 were included. CC patients (n = 201) and HL of the same age were used as a surgical and a nonsurgical control group, respectively. QoL was assessed using European Organization of Research and Treatment of Cancer questionnaires QLQ-C 30 and -CR 38. ResultsQuestionnaires from 116 RC patients, 105 CC patients, and 103 HL were evaluable with a median time after surgery of 5 years. The global health status did not differ. Social functioning, future perspectives, and financial difficulties tended to poorer scores in the cancer groups. Physical functioning was better in RC and CC patients compared with HL. Defecation problems and diarrhea were more frequent in RC patients (P < .05). An additional open question revealed a median stool frequency of 3, 2, and 1 per day for RC, CC, and HL, respectively. Defecation problems were more frequent in RC patients who received radiation therapy (P < .05). ConclusionDiarrhea and defecation problems impaired QoL after AR for RC, which was worsened after radiation therapy. To improve QoL of RC patients in the future, physicians have to focus on minimization of gastrointestinal side effects while optimizing surgical reconstruction.

Risk factors for bowel dysfunction after sphincter-preserving rectal cancer surgery: a prospective study using the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center bowel function instrument.

Until recently, no studies have prospectively evaluated bowel function after sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer with the use of a validated bowel function scoring system. The aim of this study was to investigate possible risk factors for altered bowel function after sphincter-preserving surgery. This was a prospective study. The study was conducted between January 2006 and May 2012 at the authors' institution. Patients who underwent sphincter-preserving rectal cancer surgery were recruited. Bowel function was assessed 1 day before (baseline) and at 1 year after sphincter-preserving surgery or temporary ileostomy takedown with the use of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center questionnaire. Multivariable analysis was performed to identify the factors associated with altered bowel function after surgery. Overall, 266 patients were eligible for the analysis. The tumor was located in the upper, middle, and lower rectum in 68 (25.5%), 113 (42.5%), and 85 (32.0%) patients. Intersphincteric resection and temporary ileostomy were performed in 18 (6.8%) and 129 (48.5%) patients. The mean Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center score was 64.5 ± 7.6 at 1 year after sphincter-preserving surgery or temporary ileostomy takedown. The Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center score decreased in 163/266 patients (61.3%) between baseline and 1 year after surgery. Tumor location (p = 0.01), operative method (p = 0.03), anastomotic type (p = 0.01), and temporary ileostomy (p = 0.01) were associated with altered bowel function after sphincter-preserving surgery in univariate analyses. In multivariable analysis, only tumor location was independently associated with impaired bowel function after sphincter-preserving rectal cancer surgery. This study was limited by its nonrandomized design and the lack of measurement before preoperative chemoradiotherapy. We suggest that preoperative counseling should be implemented to inform patients of the risk of bowel dysfunction, especially in patients with lower rectal cancer, although this study cannot exclude the effect of chemoradiotherapy owing to the limitation of study.

Multi-institutional assessment of sphincter preservation for rectal cancer.

Sphincter-preserving surgery (SPS) has been proposed as a quality measure for rectal cancer surgery. However, previous studies on SPS rates lack critical clinical characteristics, rendering it unclear if variation in SPS rates is due to unmeasured case-mix differences or surgeons' selection criteria. In this context, we investigate the variation in SPS rates at various practice settings. Ten hospitals in the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative collected rectal cancer-specific data, including tumor location and reasons for non-SPS, of patients who underwent rectal cancer surgery from 2007 to 2012. Hospitals were divided into terciles of SPS rates (frequent, average, and infrequent). Patients were categorized as 'definitely SPS eligible' a priori if they did not have any of the following: sphincter involvement, tumor <6 cm from the anal verge, fecal incontinence, stoma preference, or metastatic disease. Fixed-effects logistic regression was used to evaluate for factors associated with SPS. In total, 329 patients underwent rectal cancer surgery at 10 hospitals (5/10 higher volume, and 6/10 major teaching). Overall, 72 % had SPS (range by hospital 47-91 %). Patient and tumor characteristics were similar between hospital terciles. On multivariable analysis, only hospital ID, younger age, and tumor location were associated with SPS, but not sex, race, body mass index, American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage, preoperative radiation, or American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class. Analysis of the 181 (55 %) 'definitely-eligible' patients revealed an SPS rate of 90 % (65-100 %). SPS rates vary by hospital, even after accounting for clinical characteristics using detailed chart review. These data suggest missed opportunities for SPS, and refute the general hypothesis that hospital variation in previous studies is due to unmeasured case-mix differences.

Multi-institutional assessment of sphincter preservation for rectal cancer.

566 Background: Rates of sphincter preserving surgery (SPS) have been proposed as a quality measure for rectal cancer (RC) surgery. However, administrative and registry-based SPS rates often lack critical patient and tumor characteristics, rendering it unclear if variations in SPS rates are due to unmeasured case-mix differences or selection criteria. The aim of this study was to determine whether hospitals’ SPS rates differ after accounting for clinical characteristics. Methods: As part of a RC quality project, 10 hospitals in the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative retrospectively collected RC-specific data from 2007-2012. We assessed for SPS predictors using multivariable regression. Patients were categorized as “definitely SPS eligible” a priori if they did not have any of the following: poor sphincter control, stoma preference, sphincter involvement, tumor &lt;6 cm from the anal verge (an intentionally conservative cutoff) or metastatic disease. We compared hospital performance with and without these clinical data using Spearman’s correlations. Results: In total, 349 patients underwent surgery for RC in 10 hospitals (5/10 high volume and 6/10 major teaching). Of those, 74% had SPS (range by hospital 50%-91%). On multivariable analysis, only pre-op radiation, tumor location, hospital teaching status and hospital ID were independent predictors of SPS, but not age, sex, BMI, AJCC stage, ASA class, or hospital CRC surgery volume. Analyses of the “definitely eligible” patients revealed an overall SPS rate of 88% (65-100%). Hospital SPS rankings using crude versus clinically-adjusted SPS rates proved to be highly correlated (Spearman’s ρ= 0.9). Tumor locations suggest differing selection criteria for SPS in different hospitals (Table). Conclusions: Rates of SPS vary by hospital, even after correcting for clinical characteristics using detailed chart review. These data suggest missed opportunities for SPS, and refute the general hypothesis that hospital variation in SPS rates in previous studies is due to unmeasured case-mix differences. [Table: see text]

Bowel dysfunction after rectal cancer treatment: a study comparing the specialist's versus patient's perspective

ObjectivesTo investigate how bowel dysfunction after sphincter-preserving rectal cancer treatment, known as low anterior resection syndrome (LARS), is perceived by rectal cancer specialists, in relation to the patient's experience.DesignQuestionnaire study.SettingInternational.Participants58...

Quality of life of patients after low anterior, intersphincteric, and abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer—a matched-pair analysis

Limits for sphincter preservation in rectal cancer have been expanded under the assumption that patients with a permanent colostomy have worse quality of life (QoL). Incontinence and painful defecation are common problems; therefore, this study compares functional outcome and QoL after sphincter-sparing intersphincteric resection (ISR), low anterior resection (LAR), and abdominoperineal resection (APR) for rectal cancer. From a prospective database, three matched groups of patients after surgery for rectal cancer between 1999 and 2009 were extracted. Median follow-up was 59 months. Of 131 patients receiving a questionnaire, 95 % could be analyzed further. Generic and disease-specific validated QoL (European Organization for Research and Treatment in Cancer QLQ-C30, CR38) and Wexner incontinence score were used. Global QoL was comparable between the groups. Physical functioning was significantly better after sphincter preservation surgery than APR (p < 0.05). Symptom scores for diarrhea (DIA) and constipation (CON) were higher after sphincter-preserving surgery (ISR: DIA 45.4, CON 20.2; LAR: DIA 34.1, CON 25.2) compared to APR (DIA 16.6, CON 12.0) (p < 0.05 and <0.01, respectively). Disease-specific QoL assessment showed significantly worse QoL regarding to male sexual function after APR (80.8) than after ISR (53.6) (p < 0.005). Regarding defecation, the ISR group showed significantly higher symptom scores than patients after LAR (p < 0.05). Wexner scores were significantly higher after ISR (12.9) than after LAR (9.5) (p < 0.005).

Implementation of Fast-Track Protocols in Open and Laparoscopic Sphincter-Preserving Rectal Cancer Surgery: A Multicenter, Comparative, Prospective, Non-Randomized Study

Background: Data on the role of laparoscopy within an enhanced recovery protocol for rectal cancer patients is rather limited. The aim of the study was to investigate the role of laparoscopy within a ‘fast-track’ protocol in patients who underwent sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer. Patients/Methods: 156 consecutive patients with low rectal cancer from three centers were assigned in four groups: the open fast track (OPEN-FT), the laparoscopic fast track (LAP-FT), the open (OPEN), and the laparoscopic (LAP). The fast-track protocol was applied in one center and traditional care in the other two. All patients underwent sphincter-preserving surgery and were followed-up for 30 days. Results: Overall morbidity was less in the fast-track groups (p = 0.007). On the other hand, no statistical significance could be identified in mortality, readmission or reoperations rates among the groups (p = 0.562, p = 0.896, p = 0.238). Fast-track patients required significantly less intramuscular opioids for postoperative analgesia (p < 0.001). Primary (p < 0.001) and total hospital stays (p < 0.001) were significantly shorter in the fast-track groups. Conclusion: The implementation of a fast-track protocol is feasible and safe in low rectal cancer patients. Laparoscopy seems to be a basic element of such protocol as it further enhances recovery and reduces morbidity.

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: preoperative radiochemotherapy versus surgery alone

A few studies have suggested advantages of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. However, the role of laparoscopy has not been clearly defined specifically in cases after neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy. This study aimed to assess the impact of preoperative radiotherapy on the feasibility of laparoscopic rectal excision with sphincter preservation for rectal cancer. From 1999 to 2010, the authors considered all patients treated by laparoscopic rectal excision with sphincter preservation for rectal cancer. Patients treated by long-course preoperative radiochemotherapy (45 Gy during 5 weeks) were compared with those treated by surgery alone. The end points of the study were mortality, conversion, and overall and surgical morbidity. Among 422 patients treated by laparoscopic conservative rectal excision, 292 received preoperative radiotherapy, and 130 had surgery alone. The two groups were similar in sex, age, body mass index, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score. The mortality rate was 0.3% in the radiotherapy group and 0.8% in the surgical group (P = 0.52). The two groups did not differ in terms of conversion (19 vs. 15%; P = 0.39), overall morbidity (37 vs. 29%; P = 0.14), surgical morbidity (20 vs. 18%; P = 0.60), or anastomotic leakage (13 vs. 11%; P = 0.54). Multivariate analysis showed male gender and synchronous metastasis as independent factors of surgical morbidity. The independent factors of conversion were male gender, obesity, tumor stage, and type of anastomosis. Preoperative radiotherapy influenced neither conversion nor surgical morbidity. Long-course radiochemotherapy does not have an impact on the feasibility or short-term outcome of laparoscopic conservative rectal excision for rectal cancer.

Sphincter preservation in rectal cancer is associated with patients' socioeconomic status

Decision making regarding the choice of surgical procedure in rectal cancer is complex. It was hypothesized that, in addition to clinical factors, several aspects of patients' socioeconomic background influence this process. Individually attained data on civil status, education and income were linked to the Swedish Rectal Cancer Registry 1995-2005 (16 713 patients) and analysed by logistic regression. Anterior resection (AR) was performed in 7433 patients (44.5 per cent), abdominoperineal resection (APR) in 3808 (22.8 per cent) and Hartmann's procedure in 1704 (10.2 per cent). Unmarried patients were least likely (odds ratio (OR) 0.76, 95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 0.64 to 0.88) and university-educated men were most likely (OR 1.30, 1.04 to 1.62) to have an AR. Patients with the highest income were more likely to undergo AR (OR 0.80, 0.85 and 0.86 respectively for first, second and third income quartiles). Socioeconomic differences in the use of AR were smallest among the youngest patients. Unmarried patients were more likely (OR 1.21, 95 per cent c.i. 1.00 to 1.48) and university-educated patients less likely (OR 0.78, 95 per cent c.i. 0.63 to 0.98) to have an APR. The choice of surgical strategy in rectal cancer is not socioeconomically neutral. Confounding factors, such as co-morbidity or smoking, may explain some of the differences but inequality in treatment is also plausible.