-
International Journal of Colorectal... Oct 2020Restorative proctocolectomy (RPC) is performed for patients with refractory ulcerative colitis (UC). This operation is performed in 2 or 3 stages and involves forming a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Restorative proctocolectomy (RPC) is performed for patients with refractory ulcerative colitis (UC). This operation is performed in 2 or 3 stages and involves forming a diverting loop ileostomy thought to protect patients from complications related to anastomotic leak. However, some advocate for a modified 2-stage approach, consisting of subtotal colectomy followed by completion proctectomy and ileal pouch anal anastomosis without diverting ileostomy. We present a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing postoperative complication rates between modified 2-stage and traditional RPC with ileal pouch anal anastomosis.
METHODS
Records were sourced from PubMed/Embase databases. Studies comparing postoperative complications following RPC for ulcerative colitis (UC) were selected according to PRISMA guidelines comparing modified 2-stage (exposure), classic 2-stage, and 3-stage approaches (comparators). The primary outcome measure was safety as measured by postoperative complication rates. We employed random effects meta-analysis.
RESULTS
We included ten observational studies including 1727 patients (38% modified 2-stage). Among pediatric patients, modified 2-stage approaches had higher rates of anastomotic leak than 3-stage approaches (p = 0.03). Among adult cohorts with lower preoperative biologic use rates, modified 2-stage approaches had lower leak rates than classic 2-stage approaches (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
The modified 2-stage approach may be safe for adult patients who otherwise require a 3-stage approach while reducing costs and length of stay. Pediatric patients may benefit from lower leak rates when receiving 3-stage compared with modified 2-stage approaches, especially when on biologics. The modified 2-stage approach may be safer than the classic 2-stage approach for adult patients with lower biologic exposure.
Topics: Adult; Anastomosis, Surgical; Child; Colitis, Ulcerative; Colonic Pouches; Humans; Ileostomy; Postoperative Complications; Proctocolectomy, Restorative; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32715346
DOI: 10.1007/s00384-020-03696-7 -
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics Mar 2017Restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch anal anastomosis (IPAA) is considered the procedure of choice in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) refractory to medical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch anal anastomosis (IPAA) is considered the procedure of choice in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) refractory to medical therapy. The incidence of pouchitis is 40% at 5 years. Ten to 15% of patients with pouchitis experience chronic pouchitis.
AIM
To determine the efficacy of medical therapies for the treatment of chronic refractory pouchitis in patients undergoing IPAA for UC.
METHODS
A systematic computer-assisted search of the on-line bibliographic database MEDLINE and EMBASE was performed between 1966 and February 2016. All original studies reporting remission rates following medical treatment for chronic pouchitis were included. All study designs were considered. Remission was defined according to the individual study. Remission endpoints ranged from 15 days to 10 weeks. Chronic pouchitis was defined by each study.
RESULTS
Twenty-one papers were considered eligible. Results from all studies combined suggested that overall remission was obtained in 59% of patients (95% CI: 44-73%). Antibiotics significantly induced remission in patients with chronic pouchitis with 74% remission rate (95% CI:56-93%), (P < 0.001). Biologics significantly induced remission in patients with chronic pouchitis with 53% remission rate (95% CI:30-76%), (P < 0.001). Steroids, bismuth, elemental diet and tacrolimus all can induce remission but failed to achieve significance. Faecal microbiota transplantation in a single study was not found to achieve remission.
CONCLUSIONS
Treatment of chronic refractory pouchitis remains difficult and is largely empirical. Larger randomised controlled trials will help aid the management of chronic pouchitis.
Topics: Algorithms; Anal Canal; Colitis, Ulcerative; Colonic Pouches; Humans; Pouchitis; Proctocolectomy, Restorative; Remission Induction; Tacrolimus
PubMed: 28008631
DOI: 10.1111/apt.13905 -
International Wound Journal Oct 2018Impaired perineal wound healing is a major source of morbidity after abdominoperineal resection. Incisional negative pressure wound therapy can improve healing, prevent...
Impaired perineal wound healing is a major source of morbidity after abdominoperineal resection. Incisional negative pressure wound therapy can improve healing, prevent infections, and decrease the frequency of dehiscence. Our objective was to summarise existing evidence on the use of incisional negative pressure wound therapy on perineal wounds after abdominoperineal resection and to determine the effect on perineal wound complications. Electronic databases were searched in January 2017. Studies describing the use of incisional negative pressure wound therapy on primarily closed perineal wounds after abdominoperineal resection were included. Of the 278 identified articles, 5 were retrieved for inclusion in the systematic review (n = 169 patients). A significant decrease in perineal wound complications when using incisional negative pressure wound therapy was demonstrated, with surgical site infection rates as low as 9% (vs 41% in control groups). The major limitation of this systematic review was a small number of retrieved studies with small patient populations, high heterogeneity, and methodological issues. This review suggests that incisional negative pressure wound therapy decreases perineal wound complications after abdominoperineal resection. Further prospective trials with larger patient populations would be needed to confirm this association and delineate which patients might benefit most from the intervention.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Colorectal Surgery; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy; Perineum; Surgical Wound Infection; Wound Healing
PubMed: 29863305
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.12921 -
PloS One 2020To analyze pathologic and perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic vs. open resections for rectal cancer performed over the last 10 years. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
To analyze pathologic and perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic vs. open resections for rectal cancer performed over the last 10 years.
METHODS
A systematic literature search of the following databases was conducted: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE (through PubMed), EMBASE, and Scopus. Only articles published in English from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2018 (i.e. the last 10 years), which met inclusion criteria were considered. The review only included articles which compared Laparoscopic rectal resection (LRR) and Open Rectal Resection (ORR) for rectal cancer and reported at least one of the outcomes of interest. The analyses followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement checklist. Only prospective randomized studies were considered. The body of evidence emerging from this study was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Outcome measures (mean and median values, standard deviations, and interquartile ranges) were extracted for each surgical treatment. Pooled estimates of the mean differences were calculated using random effects models to consider potential inter-study heterogeneity and to adopt a more conservative approach. The pooled effect was considered significant if p <0.05.
RESULTS
Five clinical trials were found eligible for the analyses. A positive involvement of CRM was found in 49 LRRs (8.5%) out of 574 patients and in 30 ORRs out of 557 patients (5.4%) RR was 1.55 (95% CI, 0.99-2.41; p = 0.05) with no heterogeneity (I2 = 0%). Incorrect mesorectal excision was observed in 56 out of 507 (11%) patients who underwent LRR and in 41 (8.4%) out of 484 patients who underwent ORR; RR was 1.30 (95% CI, 0.89-1.91; p = 0.18) with no heterogeneity (I2 = 0%). Regarding other pathologic outcomes, no significant difference between LRR and ORR was observed in the number of lymph nodes harvested or concerning the distance to the distal margin. As expected, a significant difference was found in the operating time for ORR with a mean difference of 41.99 (95% CI, 24.18, 59.81; p <0.00001; heterogeneity: I2 = 25%). However, no difference was found for blood loss. Additionally, no significant differences were found in postoperative outcomes such as postoperative hospital stay and postoperative complications. The overall quality of the evidence was rated as high.
CONCLUSION
Despite the spread of laparoscopy with dedicated surgeons and the development of even more precise surgical tools and technologies, the pathological results of laparoscopic surgery are still comparable to those of open ones. Additionally, concerning the pathological data (and particularly CRM), open surgery guarantees better results as compared to laparoscopic surgery. These results must be a starting point for future evaluations which consider the association between ''successful resection" and long-term oncologic outcomes. The introduction of other minimally invasive techniques for rectal cancer surgery, such as robotic resection or transanal TME (taTME), has revealed new scenarios and made open and even laparoscopic surgery obsolete.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Female; Humans; Laparoscopy; Male; Middle Aged; Postoperative Complications; Proctectomy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rectal Neoplasms
PubMed: 32722694
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235887 -
International Journal of Surgery... Nov 2018In recent years, transanal tube placement was reported to be an effective procedure preventing anastomotic leakage after anterior resection of rectal cancer. However,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
In recent years, transanal tube placement was reported to be an effective procedure preventing anastomotic leakage after anterior resection of rectal cancer. However, this procedure is still controversial owing to inconsistent results found in previous studies.
METHODS
A comprehensive literature search was performed using Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane library from the databases inception up until June 21, 2018. The methodological quality of randomized controlled trials and cohort studies were evaluated by Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, respectively. Statistical analysis was performed using the RevMan 5.3 software.
RESULTS
1 randomized controlled trial and 9 cohort studies were included in our meta-analysis. The randomized controlled trial was proven to be low risk according to the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias. All of the cohort studies proved a high quality according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Patients in transanal tube group had more disadvantageous preoperative demographic characteristics than patients in non-transanal tube group. The anastomotic leak rate was lower in the transanal tube group. Patients in the transanal tube group tended to have lower reoperation rates and shorter hospital stays compared with patients in the non-transanal tube group.
CONCLUSION
Despite various unfavorable preoperative characteristics, anastomotic leakage after anterior resection was lower in patients who received transanal tube placement compared with the control group. Transanal tube placement may be an alternative procedure of defunctioning stoma. A large sample size, multicenter RCT was needed to prove our results.
Topics: Anastomosis, Surgical; Anastomotic Leak; Decompression, Surgical; Female; Humans; Length of Stay; Male; Operative Time; Proctectomy; Rectal Neoplasms; Reoperation; Surgical Stomas
PubMed: 30266662
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2018.09.012 -
Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical... Jun 2022Abscess or fistula of the anal region is an uncommon presentation of malignancy. Under the assumption of a benign condition, diagnostics is often delayed, resulting in...
Non-mucinous adenocarcinomas and squamous cell carcinomas of the anal region masquerading as abscess or fistula: a retrospective analysis and systematic review of literature.
PURPOSE
Abscess or fistula of the anal region is an uncommon presentation of malignancy. Under the assumption of a benign condition, diagnostics is often delayed, resulting in advanced tumour stages at first diagnosis. Due to the case rarity, treatment guidelines for cancers of anorectal region masquerading as abscess or fistula are missing.
METHODS
We analysed all patients presenting with an abscess or fistula of the anal region in our department between January 2004 and August 2020. The malignancies were included to our study to acquire data on clinical presentation, treatment and outcome. Furthermore, a systematic review to present adenocarcinomas and squamous cell carcinomas associated to an abscess or fistula was performed.
RESULTS
0.5% of the patients treated for an abscess or fistula of the anal region met the selection criteria. Mean time from the onset of symptoms to diagnosis of malignancy was 100 days. Histology revealed adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma each in two patients. All patients had locally advanced tumours without distant metastases, in two cases with regional lymph-node metastases. Neoadjuvant chemoradiation was applied in two patients. All patients underwent abdomino-perineal resection of the rectum. The overall outcome reveals a recurrence-free survival of 4.5 and 3 years for two patients. Further two patients died within 5 months after the primary resection.
CONCLUSION
Advanced carcinomas of the anorectal region may masquerade as abscess or fistula, cause diagnostic problems and delay oncologic treatment. However, even in these very advanced situations, surgical therapy with curative intent should be attempted.
Topics: Abscess; Adenocarcinoma; Carcinoma, Squamous Cell; Fistula; Humans; Rectum; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 34338860
DOI: 10.1007/s00432-021-03747-8 -
Inflammatory Bowel Diseases Nov 2023Total proctocolectomy with ileal pouch anal anastomosis (IPAA) for medically refractory ulcerative colitis or dysplasia may be associated with structural and...
BACKGROUND
Total proctocolectomy with ileal pouch anal anastomosis (IPAA) for medically refractory ulcerative colitis or dysplasia may be associated with structural and inflammatory complications. However, even in their absence, defecatory symptoms secondary to dyssynergic defecation or fecal incontinence may occur. Although anorectal manometry is well established as the diagnostic test of choice for defecatory symptoms, its utility in the assessment of patients with IPAA is less established. In this systematic review, we critically evaluate the existing evidence for anopouch manometry (APM).
METHODS
A total of 393 studies were identified, of which 6 studies met all inclusion criteria. Studies were not pooled given different modalities of testing with varying outcome measures.
RESULTS
Overall, less than 10% of symptomatic patients post-IPAA were referred to APM. The prevalence of dyssynergic defecation as defined by the Rome IV criteria in symptomatic patients with IPAA ranged from 47.0% to 100%. Fecal incontinence in patients with IPAA was characterized by decreased mean and maximal resting anal pressure on APM, as well as pouch hyposensitivity. The recto-anal inhibitory reflex was absent in most patients with and without incontinence.
CONCLUSION
Manometry alone is an imperfect assessment of pouch function in patients with defecatory symptoms, and confirmatory testing may need to be performed with dynamic imaging.
Topics: Humans; Fecal Incontinence; Proctocolectomy, Restorative; Anastomosis, Surgical; Rectum; Colitis, Ulcerative; Anal Canal; Colonic Pouches
PubMed: 36351035
DOI: 10.1093/ibd/izac234 -
BJS Open Nov 2021Low rectal cancers could be treated using restorative (anterior resection, AR) or non-restorative procedures with an end/permanent stoma (Hartmann's, HE; or...
BACKGROUND
Low rectal cancers could be treated using restorative (anterior resection, AR) or non-restorative procedures with an end/permanent stoma (Hartmann's, HE; or abdominoperineal excision, APE). Although the surgical choice is determined by tumour and patient factors, quality of life (QoL) will also influence the patient's future beyond cancer. This systematic review of the literature compared postoperative QoL between the restorative and non-restorative techniques using validated measurement tools.
METHODS
The review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020131492). Embase and MEDLINE, along with grey literature and trials websites, were searched comprehensively for papers published since 2012. Inclusion criteria were original research in an adult population with rectal cancer that reported QoL using a validated tool, including the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-CR30, QLQ-CR29, and QLQ-CR38. Studies were included if they compared AR with APE (or HE), independent of study design. Risk of bias was assessed using the Risk Of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Outcomes of interest were: QoL, pain, gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms (stool frequency, flatulence, diarrhoea and constipation), and body image.
RESULTS
Nineteen studies met the inclusion criteria with a total of 6453 patients; all papers were observational and just four included preoperative evaluations. There was no identifiable difference in global QoL and pain between the two surgical techniques. Reported results regarding GI symptoms and body image documented similar findings. The ROBINS-I tool highlighted a significant risk of bias across the studies.
CONCLUSION
Currently, it is not possible to draw a firm conclusion on postoperative QoL, pain, GI symptoms, and body image following restorative or non-restorative surgery. The included studies were generally of poor quality, lacked preoperative evaluations, and showed considerable bias in the data.
Topics: Abdomen; Adult; Colostomy; Humans; Quality of Life; Rectal Neoplasms; Rectum
PubMed: 35040944
DOI: 10.1093/bjsopen/zrab101 -
Clinical Colorectal Cancer Jun 2019Preoperative radiotherapy (RT) plays an important role in the management of locally advanced rectal cancer (RC). Tumor regression after RT shows marked variability, and...
Preoperative radiotherapy (RT) plays an important role in the management of locally advanced rectal cancer (RC). Tumor regression after RT shows marked variability, and robust molecular methods are needed to help predict likely response. The aim of this study was to review the current published literature and use Gene Ontology (GO) analysis to define key molecular biomarkers governing radiation response in RC. A systematic review of electronic bibliographic databases (Medline, Embase) was performed for original articles published between 2000 and 2015. Biomarkers were then classified according to biological function and incorporated into a hierarchical GO tree. Both significant and nonsignificant results were included in the analysis. Significance was binarized on the basis of univariate and multivariate statistics. Significance scores were calculated for each biological domain (or node), and a direct acyclic graph was generated for intuitive mapping of biological pathways and markers involved in RC radiation response. Seventy-two individual biomarkers across 74 studies were identified. On highest-order classification, molecular biomarkers falling within the domains of response to stress, cellular metabolism, and pathways inhibiting apoptosis were found to be the most influential in predicting radiosensitivity. Homogenizing biomarker data from original articles using controlled GO terminology demonstrated that cellular mechanisms of response to RT in RC-in particular the metabolic response to RT-may hold promise in developing radiotherapeutic biomarkers to help predict, and in the future modulate, radiation response.
Topics: Biomarkers, Tumor; Disease-Free Survival; Humans; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Proctectomy; Prognosis; Radiation Tolerance; Radiotherapy, Adjuvant; Rectal Neoplasms; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30928329
DOI: 10.1016/j.clcc.2019.01.004 -
International Journal of Colorectal... Feb 2022The ileoanal pouch (IPAA) provides patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) that have not responded to medical therapy an option to retain bowel continuity and defecate... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
The ileoanal pouch (IPAA) provides patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) that have not responded to medical therapy an option to retain bowel continuity and defecate without the need for a long-term stoma. Despite good functional outcomes, some pouches fail, requiring permanent diversion, pouchectomy, or a redo pouch. The incidence of pouch failure ranges between 2 and 15% in the literature. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis aiming to define the prevalence of pouch failure in patients with UC who have undergone IPAA using population-based studies.
METHODS
We searched Embase, Embase classic and PubMed from 1978 to 31st of May 2021 to identify cross-sectional studies that reported the prevalence of pouch failure in adults (≥ 18 years of age) who underwent IPAA for UC.
RESULTS
Twenty-six studies comprising 23,389 patients were analysed. With < 5 years of follow-up, the prevalence of pouch failure was 5% (95%CI 3-10%). With ≥ 5 but < 10 years of follow-up, the prevalence was 5% (95%CI 4-7%). This increased to 9% (95%CI 7-16%) with ≥ 10 years of follow-up. The overall prevalence of pouch failure was 6% (95%CI 5-8%).
CONCLUSIONS
The overall prevalence of pouch failure in patients over the age of 18 who have undergone restorative proctocolectomy in UC is 6%. These data are important for counselling patients considering this operation. Importantly, for those patients with UC being considered for a pouch, their disease course has often resulted in both physical and psychological morbidity and hence providing accurate expectations for these patients is vital.
Topics: Adult; Colitis, Ulcerative; Colonic Pouches; Cross-Sectional Studies; Humans; Middle Aged; Postoperative Complications; Prevalence; Proctocolectomy, Restorative; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34825957
DOI: 10.1007/s00384-021-04067-6