-
Surgical Endoscopy Apr 2022Evidence and practice recommendations on the use of transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for rectal cancer are conflicting. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Evidence and practice recommendations on the use of transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for rectal cancer are conflicting.
OBJECTIVE
We aimed to summarize best evidence and develop a rapid guideline using transparent, trustworthy, and standardized methodology.
METHODS
We developed a rapid guideline in accordance with GRADE, G-I-N, and AGREE II standards. The steering group consisted of general surgeons, members of the EAES Research Committee/Guidelines Subcommittee with expertise and experience in guideline development, advanced medical statistics and evidence synthesis, biostatisticians, and a guideline methodologist. The guideline panel consisted of four general surgeons practicing colorectal surgery, a radiologist with expertise in rectal cancer, a radiation oncologist, a pathologist, and a patient representative. We conducted a systematic review and the results of evidence synthesis by means of meta-analyses were summarized in evidence tables. Recommendations were authored and published through an online authoring and publication platform (MAGICapp), with the guideline panel making use of an evidence-to-decision framework and a Delphi process to arrive at consensus.
RESULTS
This rapid guideline provides a weak recommendation for the use of TaTME over laparoscopic or robotic TME for low rectal cancer when expertise is available. Furthermore, it details evidence gaps to be addressed by future research and discusses policy considerations. The guideline, with recommendations, evidence summaries, and decision aids in user-friendly formats can also be accessed in MAGICapp: https://app.magicapp.org/#/guideline/4494 .
CONCLUSIONS
This rapid guideline provides evidence-informed trustworthy recommendations on the use of TaTME for rectal cancer.
Topics: GRADE Approach; Humans; Laparoscopy; Postoperative Complications; Proctectomy; Rectal Neoplasms; Rectum; Transanal Endoscopic Surgery
PubMed: 35212821
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-022-09090-4 -
Indian Journal of Surgical Oncology Dec 2022Rectal cancer is a common tumor within a difficult anatomic constraint. Total mesorectal excision with longitudinal and circumferential free margins is considered... (Review)
Review
Rectal cancer is a common tumor within a difficult anatomic constraint. Total mesorectal excision with longitudinal and circumferential free margins is considered imperative for good prognosis. In this article, the authors systematically reviewed all published literature with specific Mesh terms until the end of year 2019. Thereafter, retrieved articles were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and meta-analysis was conducted comparing local recurrence among 1-cm, 5-mm, and narrow (< 1-mm)/infiltrated margins. Thirty-nine articles were included in the study. Macroscopic distal margin < 1 cm carried a higher incidence of recurrence for those who did not receive neoadjuvant radiation, without affecting neither estimated overall nor disease-free survival. Less than 5-mm margin after radiation therapy is accepted oncologically. Infiltrated margins and narrow margins (< 1 mm) microscopically are associated with higher incidence of local recurrence and shorter overall and disease-free survival. Surgeons should aim at 1-cm safety margin in radiotherapy-naïve patients and microscopic free margin > 1 mm for those who received neoadjuvant therapy. The cost/benefit of reoperation for patients with infiltrated margins is still inadequately studied.
PubMed: 36687255
DOI: 10.1007/s13193-022-01565-z -
Yeungnam University Journal of Medicine Jul 2021Omental transposition has been used to facilitate perineal wound healing in patients undergoing abdominoperineal resection (APR). However, there is no high-level...
BACKGRUOUND
Omental transposition has been used to facilitate perineal wound healing in patients undergoing abdominoperineal resection (APR). However, there is no high-level evidence supporting the effectiveness of omental transposition in this regard. This study aimed to investigate the clinical efficacy of omental transposition in facilitating perineal wound healing after APR.
METHODS
In this systematic review, we systematically searched the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases for literature regarding the topic of our study. Studies published since the inception of each database were considered for review. The outcomes of interest were the perineal wound healing rate at 1 and 3 months postoperatively, perineal wound infection rate, and perineal wound healing period.
RESULTS
Of the 1,923 studies identified, four articles representing 819 patients (omental transposition patients, n=295) were included in the final analysis. The wound healing rates at 1 and 3 months postoperatively in the omental transposition group (68.5% and 79.7%, respectively) did not significantly differ from those in the control group (57.4% and 78.7%, respectively) (p=0.759 and p=0.731, respectively). Perineal wound infection and chronic wound complication rates, including sinus, dehiscence, and fistula rates, also did not significantly differ between the omental transposition (8% and 7%, respectively) and control (11% and 7%, respectively) groups (p=0.221 and p=0.790, respectively).
CONCLUSION
Our results suggest that omental transposition does not affect perineal wound healing in patients who undergo APR.
PubMed: 33557001
DOI: 10.12701/yujm.2020.00871 -
International Journal of Surgery... Jul 2023
Meta-Analysis
How to reasonably deal with zero-events in meta-analysis of surgery-related outcomes? Oncologic outcomes of intersphincteric resection vs. abdominoperineal resection for lower rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Topics: Humans; Rectal Neoplasms; Proctectomy; Treatment Outcome; Anal Canal
PubMed: 37300885
DOI: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000000379 -
Surgery Aug 2021Circumferential resection margin is considered an important prognostic parameter after rectal cancer surgery, but its impact might have changed because of improved... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Prognostic importance of circumferential resection margin in the era of evolving surgical and multidisciplinary treatment of rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Circumferential resection margin is considered an important prognostic parameter after rectal cancer surgery, but its impact might have changed because of improved surgical quality and tailored multimodality treatment. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the prognostic importance of circumferential resection margin involvement based on the most recent literature.
METHODS
A systematic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was performed for studies published between January 2006 and May 2019. Studies were included if 3- or 5-year oncological outcomes were reported depending on circumferential resection margin status. Outcome parameters were local recurrence, overall survival, disease-free survival, and distant metastasis rate. The Newcastle Ottawa Scale and Jadad score were used for quality assessment of the studies. Meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model and reported as a pooled odds ratio or hazard ratio with 95% confidence interval.
RESULTS
Seventy-five studies were included, comprising a total of 85,048 rectal cancer patients. Significant associations between circumferential resection margin involvement and all long-term outcome parameters were uniformly found, with varying odds ratios and hazard ratios depending on circumferential resection margin definition (<1 mm, ≤1 mm, otherwise), neoadjuvant treatment, study period, and geographical origin of the studies.
CONCLUSION
Circumferential resection margin involvement has remained an independent, poor prognostic factor for local recurrence and survival in most recent literature, indicating that circumferential resection margin status can still be used as a short-term surrogate endpoint.
Topics: Combined Modality Therapy; Humans; Margins of Excision; Proctectomy; Prognosis; Rectal Neoplasms
PubMed: 33838883
DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2021.02.029 -
Annals of Coloproctology Dec 2021Intersphincteric resection (ISR) is the ultimate anus-sparing technique for low rectal cancer and is considered an oncologically safe alternative to abdominoperineal... (Review)
Review
Intersphincteric resection (ISR) is the ultimate anus-sparing technique for low rectal cancer and is considered an oncologically safe alternative to abdominoperineal resection. The application of the robotic approach to ISR (RISR) has been described by few specialized surgical teams with several differences regarding approach and technique. This review aims to discuss the technical aspects of RISR by evaluating point by point each surgical controversy. Moreover, a systematic review was performed to report the perioperative, oncological, and functional outcomes of RISR. Postoperative morbidities after RISR are acceptable. RISR allows adequate surgical margins and adequate oncological outcomes. RISR may result in severe bowel and genitourinary dysfunction affecting the quality of life in a portion of patients.
PubMed: 34784706
DOI: 10.3393/ac.2021.00836.0119 -
Cancer Control : Journal of the Moffitt... 2024This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare outcomes between stapled ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) and hand-sewn IPAA with mucosectomy in cases of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Stapled Anastomosis Versus Hand-Sewn Anastomosis With Mucosectomy for Ileal Pouch-Anal Anastomosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Postoperative Outcomes, Functional Outcomes, and Oncological Safety.
PURPOSE
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare outcomes between stapled ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) and hand-sewn IPAA with mucosectomy in cases of ulcerative colitis and familial adenomatous polyposis.
METHODS
This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis) guidelines 2020 and AMSTAR 2 (Assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews) guidelines. We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs). Subgroup analysis was performed according to the indication for surgery.
RESULTS
The bibliographic research yielded 31 trials: 3 RCTs, 5 prospective clinical trials, and 24 CCTs including 8872 patients: 4871 patients in the stapled group and 4038 in the hand-sewn group. Regarding postoperative outcomes, the stapled group had a lower rate of anastomotic stricture, small bowel obstruction, and ileal pouch failure. There were no differences between the 2 groups in terms of operative time, anastomotic leak, pelvic sepsis, pouchitis, or hospital stay. For functional outcomes, the stapled group was associated with greater outcomes in terms of seepage per day and by night, pad use, night incontinence, resting pressure, and squeeze pressure. There were no differences in stool Frequency per 24h, stool frequency at night, antidiarrheal medication, sexual impotence, or length of the high-pressure zone. There was no difference between the 2 groups in terms of dysplasia and neoplasia.
CONCLUSIONS
Compared to hand-sewn anastomosis, stapled ileoanal anastomosis leads to a large reduction in anastomotic stricture, small bowel obstruction, ileal pouch failure, seepage by day and night, pad use, and night incontinence. This may ensure a higher resting pressure and squeeze pressure in manometry evaluation.
PROTOCOL REGISTRATION
The protocol was registered at PROSPERO under CRD 42022379880.
Topics: Male; Humans; Constriction, Pathologic; Surgical Stapling; Proctocolectomy, Restorative; Anastomosis, Surgical; Colonic Pouches; Postoperative Complications; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38410083
DOI: 10.1177/10732748241236338 -
Colorectal Disease : the Official... Sep 2021The continent ileostomy allows evacuation of an ileal reservoir at a time convenient to the patient. It is a surgical option for patients with ulcerative colitis (UC)... (Review)
Review
AIM
The continent ileostomy allows evacuation of an ileal reservoir at a time convenient to the patient. It is a surgical option for patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) when a restorative option is not suitable or has not succeeded and the patient does not want a conventional end ileostomy. Continent ileostomy types include the Kock pouch, Barnett continent intestinal reservoir and T-pouch. All of the published evidence on the long-term outcome and quality of life after continent ileostomy for UC was systematically reviewed.
METHODS
A systematic review was performed in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies published between 1990 and 2020 were included. A descriptive synthesis was used due to the clinical heterogeneity.
RESULTS
The search returned 1655 abstracts and after screening of abstracts and full text review, 19 were included in the final review, involving 1602 patients. Operative mortality is low (0%-3.6%) after all types of continent ileostomy but reoperation rates are high (20.8%-65%) because of valve mechanism failures. Rates of fistulae (0%-25.5%) and stomal stenosis (0%-25%) can be relatively high postoperatively. Quality of life scores improve for most patients undergoing continent ileostomy, especially for patients converted from ileal pouch anal anastomosis. Overall, continent ileostomy retention is high in the long-term.
DISCUSSION
In the long-term, patients report high satisfaction and a good quality of life with continent ileostomy, despite high reoperation rates and complications. Newer technologies may reinvigorate interest in the continent ileostomy for this population.
Topics: Colitis, Ulcerative; Colonic Pouches; Humans; Ileostomy; Proctocolectomy, Restorative; Quality of Life
PubMed: 34166559
DOI: 10.1111/codi.15788 -
Colorectal Disease : the Official... Nov 2022The aim of this systematic review was to analyse recurrence rates after different surgical techniques for perineal hernia repair. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIM
The aim of this systematic review was to analyse recurrence rates after different surgical techniques for perineal hernia repair.
METHOD
All original studies (n ≥ 2 patients) reporting recurrence rates after perineal hernia repair after abdominoperineal resection (APR) were included. The electronic database PubMed was last searched in December 2021. The primary outcome was recurrent perineal hernia. A weighted average of the logit proportions was determined by the use of the generic inverse variance method and random effects model.
RESULTS
A total of 19 studies involving 172 patients were included. The mean age of patients was 64 ± 5.6 years and the indication for APR was predominantly cancer (99%, 170/172). The pooled percentage of recurrent perineal hernia was 39% (95% CI: 27%-52%) after biological mesh closure, 29% (95% CI: 21%-39%) after synthetic mesh closure, 37% (95% CI: 14%-67%) after tissue flap reconstruction only and 9% (95% CI: 1%-45%) after tissue flap reconstruction combined with mesh.
CONCLUSION
Recurrence rates after mesh repair of perineal hernia are high, without a clear difference between biological and synthetic meshes. The addition of a tissue flap to mesh repair seemed to have a favourable outcome, which warrants further investigation.
Topics: Aged; Humans; Middle Aged; Hernia, Abdominal; Herniorrhaphy; Perineum; Proctectomy; Surgical Mesh; Free Tissue Flaps; Recurrence; Neoplasms
PubMed: 35712806
DOI: 10.1111/codi.16224 -
PloS One 2023Minimally invasive total mesorectal excision is increasingly being used as an alternative to open surgery in the treatment of patients with rectal cancer. This...
OBJECTIVES
Minimally invasive total mesorectal excision is increasingly being used as an alternative to open surgery in the treatment of patients with rectal cancer. This systematic review aimed to compare the total, operative and hospitalization costs of open, laparoscopic, robot-assisted and transanal total mesorectal excision.
METHODS
This systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement (PRISMA) (S1 File) A literature review was conducted (end-of-search date: January 1, 2023) and quality assessment performed using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria.
RESULTS
12 studies were included, reporting on 2542 patients (226 open, 1192 laparoscopic, 998 robot-assisted and 126 transanal total mesorectal excision). Total costs of minimally invasive total mesorectal excision were higher compared to the open technique in the majority of included studies. For robot-assisted total mesorectal excision, higher operative costs and lower hospitalization costs were reported compared to the open and laparoscopic technique. A meta-analysis could not be performed due to low study quality and a high level of heterogeneity. Heterogeneity was caused by differences in the learning curve and statistical methods used.
CONCLUSION
Literature regarding costs of total mesorectal excision techniques is limited in quality and number. Available evidence suggests minimally invasive techniques may be more expensive compared to open total mesorectal excision. High-quality economical evaluations, accounting for the learning curve, are needed to properly assess costs of the different techniques.
Topics: Humans; Robotics; Rectal Neoplasms; Proctectomy; Laparoscopy; Hospitalization; Transanal Endoscopic Surgery; Rectum; Treatment Outcome; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 37506122
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0289090