-
Polski Przeglad Chirurgiczny Apr 2022<b>Introduction:</b> Perineal hernia (PH), also termed pelvic floor hernia, is a protrusion of intraabdominal viscera into the perineum through a defect in...
<b>Introduction:</b> Perineal hernia (PH), also termed pelvic floor hernia, is a protrusion of intraabdominal viscera into the perineum through a defect in the pelvic floor. </br></br> <b>Aim:</b> The study was conducted to evaluate the cases of perineal hernia resulting as a complication of abdominoperineal resection (APR) of rectal cancer. </br></br> <b> Material and methods:</b> 30 cases from 24 articles published in reputable peer reviewed journals were evaluated for eight variables including [I] patient age, [II] gender, [III] time since APR, [IV] clinical presentation, [V] approach to repair, [VI] type of repair, [VII] presence/absence of pelvic adhesions [VIII] complications. </br></br> <b>Results:</b> There was a total of 30 cases (18 males and 12 females) with a mean age of 71.5 years. The time of onset of symptoms ranged from 6 days to 12 years. Perineal lump with pain was the chief presenting feature followed by intestinal obstruction. Different approaches were adopted to repair by various methods. </br></br> <b>Conclusions:</b> Perineal hernia as a complication of abdominoperineal resection is reported increasingly nowadays, as the approach to management of rectal cancer has gradually got shifted from open to minimally invasive in recent years. There is a need to spread awareness about this condition, so that it is actively looked for, during the postoperative follow-up. Management is surgical repair; the approach and type of repair should be individualized.
Topics: Female; Male; Humans; Aged; Proctectomy; Rectal Neoplasms; Intestinal Obstruction; Abdominal Cavity; Hernia
PubMed: 36468514
DOI: 10.5604/01.3001.0015.7677 -
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 -
PloS One 2022Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) before total mesorectal excision (TME) and followed systemic chemotherapy is widely accepted as the standard therapy for locally... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) before total mesorectal excision (TME) and followed systemic chemotherapy is widely accepted as the standard therapy for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). This meta-analysis was to evaluate the current evidence regarding nCRT in combination with induction or consolidation chemotherapy for rectal cancer in terms of oncological outcomes.
METHODS
A systematic search of medical databases (PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library) was conducted up to the end of July 1, 2021. This meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy of TNT in terms of pathological complete remission (pCR), nCRT or surgical complications, R0 resection, local recurrence, distant metastasis, disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in LARC.
RESULTS
Eight nRCTs and 7 RCTs, including 3579 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The rate of pCR was significantly higher in the TNT group than in the nCRT group, (OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.39-2.46, p < 0.0001), DFS (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.69-0.92, p = 0.001), OS (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.62-0.89, p = 0.002), nCRT complications (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.77-1.44, p = 0.75), surgical complications (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.83-1.26, p = 0.83), local recurrence (OR 1.82, 95% CI 0.95-3.49, p = 0.07), distant metastasis (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.58-1.03, p = 0.08) did not differ significantly between the TNT and nCRT groups.
CONCLUSION
TNT appears to have advantages over standard therapy for LARC in terms of pCR, R0 resection, DFS, and OS, with comparable nCRT and postoperative complications, and no increase in local recurrence and distant metastasis.
Topics: Humans; Chemoradiotherapy; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Neoplasms, Second Primary; Rectal Neoplasms; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome; Standard of Care; Proctectomy; Mesentery; Antineoplastic Agents
PubMed: 36331947
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0276599 -
Frontiers in Surgery 2022Robotic surgery has been progressively implemented for colorectal procedures but is still limited for multiquadrant abdominal resections. The present study aims to... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Robotic surgery has been progressively implemented for colorectal procedures but is still limited for multiquadrant abdominal resections. The present study aims to describe our experience in robotic multiquadrant colorectal surgeries and provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature investigating the outcomes of robotic total proctocolectomy (TPC), total colectomy (TC), subtotal colectomy (STC), or completion proctectomy (CP) compared to laparoscopy.
METHODS
At our institution 16 consecutive patients underwent a 2- or 3-stage totally robotic total proctocolectomy (TPC) with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. A systematic review of the literature was performed to select studies on robotic and laparoscopic multiquadrant colorectal procedures. Meta-analyses were used to compare the two approaches.
RESULTS
In our case series, 14/16 patients underwent a 2-stage robotic TPC for ulcerative colitis with a mean operative time of 271.42 (SD:37.95) minutes. No conversion occurred. Two patients developed postoperative complications. The mean hospital stay was 8.28 (SD:1.47) days with no readmissions. Mortality was nil. All patients underwent loop-ileostomy closure, and functional outcomes were satisfactory. The literature appraisal was based on 23 retrospective studies, including 736 robotic and 9,904 laparoscopic multiquadrant surgeries. In the robotic group, 36 patients underwent STC, 371 TC, 166 TPC, and 163 CP. Pooled data analysis showed that robotic TC and STC had a lower conversion rate (OR = 0.17;95% CI, 0.04-0.82; = 0.03) than laparoscopic TC and STC. The robotic approach was associated with longer operative time for TC and STC (MD = 104.64;95% CI, 18.42-190.87; = 0.02) and TPC and CP (MD = 38.8;95% CI, 18.7-59.06; = 0.0002), with no differences for postoperative complications and hospital stay. Reports on urological outcomes, sexual dysfunction, and quality of life were missing.
CONCLUSIONS
Our experience and the literature suggest that robotic multiquadrant colorectal surgery is safe and effective, with low morbidity and mortality rates. Nevertheless, the overall level of evidence is low, and functional outcomes of robotic approach remain largely unknown.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: CRD42022303016.
PubMed: 36061042
DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.991704 -
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 -
World Journal of Surgical Oncology Mar 2022To assess the efficacy of extraperitoneal colostomy (EPC) in preventing stoma-related complications. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIM
To assess the efficacy of extraperitoneal colostomy (EPC) in preventing stoma-related complications.
BACKGROUND
Transperitoneal colostomy (TPC) is a widely used surgical approach. However, TPCs have been reported to have increased risks of stoma-related complications, such as parastomal hernias, stomal retraction, and stomal prolapse. The purpose of EPC is to reduce these complications. However, there is still a lack of evidence-based studies.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, MOOSE, PubMed, Google Scholar, Baidu Scholar, and the Cochrane Library were searched to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis with RCTs. The meta-analysis was performed with RevMan 5.4 software.
RESULTS
This study included 5 eligible RCTs. Compared with the TPC group, the EPC group had lower incidence rates of parastomal hernias (RR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.04-0.52, P = 0.003, I = 0%) and stomatal prolapse (RR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.08-0.95, P = 0.04, I = 0%), but a higher rate of defecation sensation (RR, 3.51; 95% CI, 2.47-5.0, P < 0.00001, I = 37%). No statistically significant differences were observed in stoma retraction, colostomy construction time, stoma ischemia, or stoma necrosis.
CONCLUSION
Extraperitoneal colostomies are associated with lower rates of postoperative complications than transperitoneal colostomies. A randomized controlled trial meta-analysis found that permanent colostomies after abdominoperineal resection resulted in better outcomes.
Topics: Colostomy; Humans; Postoperative Complications; Proctectomy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Software; Surgical Stomas
PubMed: 35279174
DOI: 10.1186/s12957-022-02547-9 -
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 -
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 -
Familial Cancer Oct 2022Desmoid tumours (DT) are one of the main causes of death in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). Surgical trauma is a risk factor for DT, yet a colectomy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Desmoid tumours (DT) are one of the main causes of death in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). Surgical trauma is a risk factor for DT, yet a colectomy is inevitable in FAP to prevent colorectal cancer. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to synthesize the available evidence on DT risk related to type, approach and timing of colectomy. A search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library. Studies were considered eligible when DT incidence was reported after different types, approaches and timing of colectomy. Twenty studies including 6452 FAP patients were selected, all observational. No significant difference in DT incidence was observed after IRA versus IPAA (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.69-1.42) and after open versus laparoscopic colectomy (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.42-1.86). Conflicting DT incidences were seen after early versus late colectomy and when analysing open versus laparoscopic colectomy according to colectomy type. Three studies reported a (non-significantly) higher DT incidence after laparoscopic IPAA compared to laparoscopic IRA, with OR varying between 1.77 and 4.09. A significantly higher DT incidence was observed in patients with a history of abdominal surgery (OR 3.40, 95% CI 1.64-7.03, p = 0.001). Current literature does not allow to state firmly whether type, approach, or timing of colectomy affects DT risk in FAP patients. Fewer DT were observed after laparoscopic IRA compared to laparoscopic IPAA, suggesting laparoscopic IRA as the preferred choice if appropriate considering rectal polyp burden. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020161424.
Topics: Humans; Fibromatosis, Aggressive; Colectomy; Adenomatous Polyposis Coli; Laparoscopy; Incidence; Proctocolectomy, Restorative
PubMed: 35022961
DOI: 10.1007/s10689-022-00288-y -
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