-
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 -
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 -
International Journal of Surgery... Aug 2020Short-term outcomes of robotic mesorectal excision for rectal cancer resection seem comparable to those of conventional laparoscopic mesorectal excision. However, the... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Short-term outcomes of robotic mesorectal excision for rectal cancer resection seem comparable to those of conventional laparoscopic mesorectal excision. However, the long-term oncological outcomes of robot mesorectal excision require further investigation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from the date of database inception to March 31, 2019 for all available trials; the results of robotic and laparoscopic mesorectal excision for rectal cancer surgery were compared. Survival parameters, including overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS), were independently extracted by two investigators. Hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated using random- or fixed-effects models. The presence of heterogeneity was assessed using Q test, and the extent of heterogeneity was quantified by I index. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager software, version 5.3.
RESULTS
A total of seven studies including 2593 patients (1362 treated by robotic mesorectal excision and 1231 by laparoscopic mesorectal excision) were included. Pooled analyses showed no significant difference in OS (HR = 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.63 to 1.39, P = 0.75) or DFS (HR = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.79 to 1.10, P = 0.85) between the robotic and laparoscopic mesorectal excision for treatment of rectal cancer.
CONCLUSION
Regarding long-term survival, robotic mesorectal excision for rectal cancer is comparable to laparoscopic mesorectal excision. More prospective, multicenter randomized trials with longer follow-up periods are needed to determine the long-term outcomes of patients undergoing robotic mesorectal excision.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Disease-Free Survival; Female; Humans; Laparoscopy; Male; Middle Aged; Proctectomy; Prospective Studies; Rectal Neoplasms; Rectum; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32251720
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.03.009 -
The British Journal of Surgery Apr 2020Total mesorectal excision (TME) gives excellent oncological results in rectal cancer treatment, but patients may experience functional problems. A novel approach to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Total mesorectal excision (TME) gives excellent oncological results in rectal cancer treatment, but patients may experience functional problems. A novel approach to performing TME is by single-port transanal minimally invasive surgery. This systematic review evaluated the functional outcomes and quality of life after transanal and laparoscopic TME.
METHODS
A comprehensive search in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase and the trial registers was conducted in May 2019. PRISMA guidelines were used. Data for meta-analysis were pooled using a random-effects model.
RESULTS
A total of 11 660 studies were identified, from which 14 studies and six conference abstracts involving 846 patients (599 transanal TME, 247 laparoscopic TME) were included. A substantial number of patients experienced functional problems consistent with low anterior resection syndrome (LARS). Meta-analysis found no significant difference in major LARS between the two approaches (risk ratio 1·13, 95 per cent c.i. 0·94 to 1·35; P = 0·18). However, major heterogeneity was present in the studies together with poor reporting of functional baseline assessment.
CONCLUSION
No differences in function were observed between transanal and laparoscopic TME.
Topics: Fecal Incontinence; Female; Humans; Laparoscopy; Postoperative Complications; Proctectomy; Quality of Life; Rectal Neoplasms; Rectum; Sexual Dysfunction, Physiological; Transanal Endoscopic Surgery; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32154594
DOI: 10.1002/bjs.11566 -
Radiology and Oncology Jun 2024Patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) develop early colorectal adenomas and if left untreated, progression to cancer is an inevitable event. Prophylactic... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) develop early colorectal adenomas and if left untreated, progression to cancer is an inevitable event. Prophylactic surgery does not prevent further development of cancer in the rectal remnant, rectal cuff in patients with ileal pouch anal anastomosis (IPAA) and even on the ileal mucosa of the pouch body. The aim of this review is to assess long-term rates of cancer and adenoma development in patients with FAP after prophylactic surgery and to summarise current recommendations for endoscopic management and surveillance of these patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic literature search of studies from January 1946 through to June 2023 was conducted using the PRISMA checklist. The electronic database PubMed was searched.
RESULTS
Fifty-four papers involving 5010 patients were reviewed. Cancer rate in the rectal remnant was 8.8-16.7% in the western population and 37% in the eastern population. The cumulative risk of cancer 30 years after surgery was 24%. Mortality due to cancer in the rectal remnant is 1.1-11.1% with a 5-year survival rate of 55%. The adenoma rate after primary IPAA was 9.4-85% with a cumulative risk of 85% 20 years after surgery and a cumulative risk of 12% for advanced adenomas 10 years after surgery. Cumulative risk for adenomas after ileorectal anastomosis (IRA) was 85% after 5 and 100% after 10 years. Adenomas developed more frequently after stapled (33.9-57%) compared to hand-sewn (0-33%) anastomosis. We identified reports of 45 cancers in patients after IPAA of which 30 were in the pouch body and 15 in the rectal cuff or at the anastomosis.
CONCLUSIONS
There was a significant incidence of cancer and adenomas in the rectal remnant and ileal pouch of FAP patients during the long-term follow-up. Regular endoscopic surveillance is recommended, not only in IRA patients, but also in pouch patients after proctocolectomy.
Topics: Humans; Adenomatous Polyposis Coli; Proctocolectomy, Restorative; Colectomy; Adenoma; Prophylactic Surgical Procedures; Colorectal Neoplasms
PubMed: 38860690
DOI: 10.2478/raon-2024-0029 -
European Journal of Surgical Oncology :... Dec 2020Evidence on the effect of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) on anastomotic leak (AL) rate after colorectal surgery is conflicting. Effects of NSAIDs might... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Postoperative administration of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in colorectal cancer surgery does not increase anastomotic leak rate; A systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Evidence on the effect of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) on anastomotic leak (AL) rate after colorectal surgery is conflicting. Effects of NSAIDs might depend on the underlying disease. This meta-analysis aimed to review the effect of NSAIDs on AL rate in a homogeneous colorectal cancer patient population.
METHODS
A systematic literature search using MEDLINE and EMBASE database was performed for studies with AL as primary outcome comparing NSAID use in the early postoperative phase with no NSAID administration in colorectal cancer patients undergoing surgical resection.
RESULTS
Nine studies including 10,868 patients met the inclusion criteria. The majority, 7689 patients (70.7%) underwent low anterior resection and 3050 patients (28.1%) underwent colonic resection. The pooled incidence of AL was 8.6% (95%CI 7.0-10.0). Overall AL rate after colorectal cancer surgery was not increased in patients using NSAIDs for postoperative analgesia compared to non-users (p = 0.34, RR 1.23; 95%CI 0.81-1.86). This effect remained non-significant after stratification for low anterior resections (p = 0.07). Stratification for colonic resections could not be performed because AL results for this subgroup were not reported separately. Neither non-selective NSAID use nor COX-2 selective NSAID use caused an increased AL rate (p = 0.19, p = 0.26). The results were robust throughout sensitivity analyses.
CONCLUSION
Use of NSAIDs in cohorts with patients undergoing surgical resection for colorectal cancer does not increase overall AL rate. Since results were robust throughout several subgroup and sensitivity analyses, prescription of NSAIDs after colorectal cancer surgery seems safe.
Topics: Anastomotic Leak; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Colectomy; Colorectal Neoplasms; Cyclooxygenase 2 Inhibitors; Humans; Pain, Postoperative; Postoperative Care; Proctectomy
PubMed: 32792221
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2020.07.017 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2019Women with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) may require surgery, which may result in higher risk of infertility. Restorative proctocolectomy with ileal anal pouch...
BACKGROUND
Women with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) may require surgery, which may result in higher risk of infertility. Restorative proctocolectomy with ileal anal pouch anastomosis (IPAA) may increase infertility, but the degree to which IPAA affects infertility remains unclear, and the impact of other surgical interventions on infertility is unknown.
OBJECTIVES
Primary objective• To determine the effects of surgical interventions for IBD on female infertility.Secondary objectives• To evaluate the impact of surgical interventions on the need for assisted reproductive technology (ART), time to pregnancy, miscarriage, stillbirth, prematurity, mode of delivery (spontaneous vaginal, instrumental vaginal, or Caesarean section), infant requirement for resuscitation and neonatal intensive care, low and very low birth weight, small for gestational age, antenatal and postpartum hemorrhage, retained placenta, postpartum depression, gestational diabetes, and gestational hypertension/preeclampsia.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Register from inception to September 27, 2018, to identify relevant studies. We also searched references of relevant articles, conference abstracts, grey literature, and trials registers.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included observational studies that compared women of reproductive age (≥ 12 years of age) who underwent surgery to women with IBD who had a different type of surgery or no surgery (i.e. treated medically). We also included studies comparing women before and after surgery. Any type of IBD-related surgery was permitted. Infertility was defined as an inability to become pregnant following 12 months of unprotected intercourse. Infertility at 6, 18, and 24 months was included as a secondary outcome. We excluded studies that included women without IBD and those comparing women with IBD to women without IBD..
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened studies and extracted data. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to assess bias and GRADE to assess the overall certainty of evidence. We calculated the pooled risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) using random-effects models. When individual studies reported odds ratios (ORs) and did not provide raw numbers, we pooled ORs instead.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 16 observational studies for inclusion. Ten studies were included in meta-analyses, of which nine compared women with and without a previous IBD-related surgery and the other compared women with open and laparoscopic IPAA. Of the ten studies included in meta-analyses, four evaluated infertility, one evaluated ART, and seven reported on pregnancy-related outcomes. Seven studies in which women were compared before and after colectomy and/or IPAA were summarized qualitatively, of which five included a comparison of infertility, three included the use of ART, and three included other pregnancy-related outcomes. One study included a comparison of women with and without IPAA, as well as before and after IPAA, and was therefore included in both the meta-analysis and the qualitative summary. All studies were at high risk of bias for at least two domains.We are very uncertain of the effect of IBD surgery on infertility at 12 months (RR 5.45, 95% CI 0.41 to 72.57; 114 participants; 2 studies) and at 24 months (RR 3.59, 95% CI 1.32 to 9.73; 190 participants; 1 study). Infertility was lower in women who received laparoscopic surgery compared to open restorative proctocolectomy at 12 months (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.27; 37 participants; 1 study).We are very uncertain of the effect of IBD surgery on pregnancy-related outcomes, including miscarriage (OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.14 to 3.60; 776 pregnancies; 5 studies), use of ART (RR 25.09, 95% CI 1.56 to 403.76; 106 participants; 1 study), delivery via Caesarean section (RR 2.23, 95% CI 1.00 to 4.95; 20 pregnancies; 1 study), stillbirth (RR 1.96, 95% CI 0.42 to 9.18; 246 pregnancies; 3 studies), preterm birth (RR 1.91, 95% CI 0.67 to 5.48; 194 pregnancies; 3 studies), low birth weight (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.08 to 4.83), and small for gestational age (RR 2.54, 95% CI 0.80 to 8.01; 65 pregnancies; 1 study).Studies comparing infertility before and after IBD-related surgery reported numerically higher rates of infertility at six months (before: 1/5, 20.0%; after: 9/15, 60.0%; 1 study), at 12 months (before: 68/327, 20.8%; after: 239/377, 63.4%; 5 studies), and at 24 months (before: 14/89, 15.7%; after: 115/164, 70.1%; 2 studies); use of ART (before: 5.3% to 42.2%; after: 30.3% to 34.3%; proportions varied across studies due to differences in which women were identified as at risk of using ART); and delivery via Caesarean section (before: 8/73, 11.0%; after: 36/75, 48.0%; 2 studies). In addition, women had a longer time to conception after surgery (two to five months; 2 studies) than before surgery (5 to 16 months; 2 studies). The proportions of women experiencing miscarriage (before: 19/123, 15.4%; after: 21/134, 15.7%; 3 studies) and stillbirth (before: 2/38, 5.3%; after: 3/80: 3.8%; 2 studies) were similar before and after surgery. Fewer women experienced gestational diabetes after surgery (before: 3/37, 8.1%; after: 0/37; 1 study), and the risk of preeclampsia was similar before and after surgery (before: 2/37, 5.4%; after: 0/37; 1 study). We are very uncertain of the effects of IBD-related surgery on these outcomes due to poor quality evidence, including confounding bias due to increased age of women after surgery.We rated evidence for all outcomes and comparisons as very low quality due to the observational nature of the data, inclusion of small studies with imprecise estimates, and high risk of bias among included studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The effect of surgical therapy for IBD on female infertility is uncertain. It is also uncertain if there are any differences in infertility among those undergoing open versus laparoscopic procedures. Previous surgery was associated with higher risk of miscarriage, use of ART, Caesarean section delivery, and giving birth to a low birth weight infant, but was not associated with risk of stillbirth, preterm delivery, or delivery of a small for gestational age infant. These findings are based on very low-quality evidence. As a result, definitive conclusions cannot be made, and future well-designed studies are needed to fully understand the impact of surgery on infertility and pregnancy outcomes.
Topics: Colonic Pouches; Female; Humans; Infertility, Female; Inflammatory Bowel Diseases; Postoperative Complications; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Outcome; Pregnancy Rate; Proctocolectomy, Restorative; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Reproductive Techniques, Assisted
PubMed: 31334846
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012711.pub2 -
Medicine Mar 2024Locally advanced colon cancer is considered a relative contraindication for minimally invasive proctectomy (MIP), and minimally invasive versus conventional open... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Locally advanced colon cancer is considered a relative contraindication for minimally invasive proctectomy (MIP), and minimally invasive versus conventional open proctectomy (COP) for locally advanced colon cancer has not been studied.
METHODS
We have searched the Embase, Cochrane Library, PubMed, Medline, and Web of Science for articles on minimally invasive (robotic and laparoscopic) and COP. We calculated pooled standard mean difference (SMD), relative risk (RR), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The protocol for this review has been registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023407029).
RESULTS
There are 10132 participants including 21 articles. Compared with COP, patients who underwent MIP had less operation time (SMD 0.48; CI 0.32 to 0.65; I2 = 0%, P = .000), estimated blood loss (MD -1.23; CI -1.90 to -0.56; I2 = 95%, P < .0001), the median time to semi-liquid diet (SMD -0.43; CI -0.70 to -0.15; I2 = 0%, P = .002), time to the first flatus (SMD -0.97; CI -1.30 to -0.63; I2 = 7%, P < .0001), intraoperative blood transfusion (RR 0.33; CI 0.24 to 0.46; I2 = 0%, P < .0001) in perioperative outcomes. Compared with COP, patients who underwent MIP had fewer overall complications (RR 0.85; CI 0.73 to 0.98; I2 = 22.4%, P = .023), postoperative complications (RR 0.79; CI 0.69 to 0.90; I2 = 0%, P = .001), and urinary retention (RR 0.63; CI 0.44 to 0.90; I2 = 0%, P = .011) in perioperative outcomes.
CONCLUSION
This study comprehensively and systematically evaluated the difference between the safety and effectiveness of minimally invasive and open treatment of locally advanced colon cancer through meta-analysis. Minimally invasive proctectomy is better than COP in postoperative and perioperative outcomes. However, there is no difference in oncological outcomes. This also provides an evidence-based reference for clinical practice. Of course, multi-center RCT research is also needed to draw more scientific and rigorous conclusions in the future.
Topics: Humans; Colonic Neoplasms; Postoperative Complications; Robotics; Proctectomy; Laparoscopy
PubMed: 38489676
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000037474