Quality of life in patients with a perineal hernia

Introduction: Patients who develop a perineal hernia after abdominoperineal resection may experience discomfort during daily activities and urogenital dysfunction, but the impact on quality of life has never been formally assessed. Materials and methods: Patients who underwent abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer between 2014 and 2022 in two prospective multicenter trials were included. Primary outcome was defined as median overall scores or scores on functional and symptom scales of the following quality of life questionnaires: 5-level version of the 5-dimensional EuroQol, Short Form-36, and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QoL Questionnaire Colorectal cancer 29 and 30, Urogenital Distress Inventory-6, Incontinence Impact Questionnaire-7. Results: Questionnaires were available in 27 patients with a perineal hernia and 62 patients without a perineal hernia. The 5-dimensional EuroQol score was significantly lower in patients with a perineal hernia (83 vs 87, p = 0.048), which implies a reduced level of functioning. The median scores of pain-specific domains were significantly worse in patients with a perineal hernia as measured by the SF-36 (78 vs. 90, p = 0.006), the EORTC-CR29 (17 vs. 11, p=&lt;0.001) and EORTC-C30 (17 vs. 0, p = 0.019). Also, significantly worse physical (73 vs. 100, p = 0.049) and emotional (83 vs. 100, p = 0.048) functioning based on EORTC-C30 was observed among those patients. Minimally important differences were found for role, physical and social functioning of the SF-36 and EORTC-C30. The urological function did not differ between the groups. Conclusion: A symptomatic perineal hernia can significantly worsen quality of life on several domains, indicating the severity of this complication.</p

Does oncological outcome differ between restorative and nonrestorative low anterior resection in patients with primary rectal cancer?

Aim Nonrestorative low anterior resection (n-rLAR) (also known as low Hartmann's) is performed for rectal cancer when a poor functional outcome is anticipated or there have been problems when constructing the anastomosis. Compared with restorative LAR (rLAR), little oncological outcome data are available for n-rLAR. The aim of this study was to compare oncological outcomes between rLAR and n-rLAR for primary rectal cancer. Method This was a nationwide cross-sectional comparative study including all elective sphincter-saving LAR procedures for nonmetastatic primary rectal cancer performed in 2011 in 71 Dutch hospitals. Oncological outcomes of patients undergoing rLAR and n-rLAR were collected in 2015; the data were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and the results compared using log-rank testing. Uni- and multivariable Cox regression analysis was used to evaluate the association between the type of LAR and oncological outcome measures. Results A total of 1197 patients were analysed, of whom 892 (75%) underwent rLAR and 305 (25%) underwent n-rLAR. The 3-year local recurrence (LR) rate was 3% after rLAR and 8% after n-rLAR (P <0.001). The 3-year disease-free survival and overall survival rates were 77% (rLAR) vs 62% (n-rLAR) (P <0.001) and 90% (rLAR) vs 75% (n-rLAR) (P <0.001), respectively. In multivariable Cox analysis, n-rLAR was independently associated with a higher risk of LR (OR = 2.95) and worse overall survival (OR = 1.72). Conclusion This nationwide study revealed that n-rLAR for rectal cancer was associated with poorer oncological outcome than r-LAR. This is probably a noncausal relationship, and might reflect technical difficulties during low pelvic dissection in a subset of those patients, with oncological implications

Management of acute and chronic pelvic sepsis after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer-a 10-year experience of a national referral centre

AimUncontrolled pelvic sepsis following rectal cancer surgery may lead to dramatic consequences with significant impact on patients' quality of life. The aim of this retrospective observational study is to evaluate management of pelvic sepsis after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer at a national referral centre.MethodReferred patients with acute or chronic pelvic sepsis after sphincter preserving rectal cancer resection, with the year of referral between 2010 and 2014 (A) or between 2015 and 2020 (B), were included. The main outcome was control of pelvic sepsis at the end of follow-up, with healed anastomosis with restored faecal stream (RFS) as co-primary outcome.ResultsIn total 136 patients were included: 49 in group A and 87 in group B. After a median follow-up of 82 months (interquartile range 35-100) in group A and 42 months (interquartile range 22-60) in group B, control of pelvic sepsis was achieved in all patients who received endoscopic vacuum assisted surgical closure (7/7 and 2/2), in 91% (19/21) and 89% (31/35) of patients who received redo anastomosis (P = 1.000) and in 100% (18/18) and 95% (41/43) of patients who received intersphincteric resection (P = 1.000), respectively. Restorative procedures resulted in a healed anastomosis with RFS in 61% (17/28) of patients in group A and 68% (25/37) of patients in group B (P = 0.567).ConclusionHigh rates of success can be achieved with surgical salvage of pelvic sepsis in a dedicated tertiary referral centre, without significant differences over time. In well selected and motivated patients a healed anastomosis with RFS can be achieved in the majority

Iatrogenic injury of the urinary tract during salvage procedures for pelvic sepsis:Experience of a national referral centre

Aim: This study aimed to determine the incidence, consequences and outcomes of iatrogenic urinary tract injury (IUI) during salvage surgery for pelvic sepsis.Method: Patients who underwent salvage surgery for pelvic sepsis after prior low anterior resection or Hartmann's procedure for rectal cancer were prospectively maintained in a database between 2010 and 2020 and reviewed retrospectively. The primary endpoint was the incidence of IUI. Secondary endpoints were timing of diagnosis (intra- vs. postoperative), reinterventions related to the IUI and healing of IUI. Results: In total 126 consecutive patients were included, and IUI occurred in 13 patients (10%). A ureteric injury occurred in eight patients, bladder injury in four patients and a urethral injury in one patient. All patients with an IUI had radiotherapy as neoadjuvant treatment. The IUI was diagnosed postoperatively in 63% (n = 8/13) with a median duration between surgery and diagnosis of the IUI of 10 days (IQR: 6–15). The median number of reinterventions was five (range 1–31) in the group with a postoperative diagnosis and one (range 0–1) in the group with an intraoperative diagnosis. Four patients required a surgical reintervention, all concerning injuries diagnosed postoperatively. At the end of follow-up, 85% of patients (n = 11/13) had a healed IUI. Conclusion: Iatrogenic urinary tract injury is not uncommon in salvage procedures for pelvic sepsis, even in an experienced tertiary referral centre. Most injuries were diagnosed postoperatively which affects the severity of these complications, emphasising the need to improve intraoperative diagnostic modalities.</p

Iatrogenic injury of the urinary tract during salvage procedures for pelvic sepsis:Experience of a national referral centre

Aim: This study aimed to determine the incidence, consequences and outcomes of iatrogenic urinary tract injury (IUI) during salvage surgery for pelvic sepsis.Method: Patients who underwent salvage surgery for pelvic sepsis after prior low anterior resection or Hartmann's procedure for rectal cancer were prospectively maintained in a database between 2010 and 2020 and reviewed retrospectively. The primary endpoint was the incidence of IUI. Secondary endpoints were timing of diagnosis (intra- vs. postoperative), reinterventions related to the IUI and healing of IUI. Results: In total 126 consecutive patients were included, and IUI occurred in 13 patients (10%). A ureteric injury occurred in eight patients, bladder injury in four patients and a urethral injury in one patient. All patients with an IUI had radiotherapy as neoadjuvant treatment. The IUI was diagnosed postoperatively in 63% (n = 8/13) with a median duration between surgery and diagnosis of the IUI of 10 days (IQR: 6–15). The median number of reinterventions was five (range 1–31) in the group with a postoperative diagnosis and one (range 0–1) in the group with an intraoperative diagnosis. Four patients required a surgical reintervention, all concerning injuries diagnosed postoperatively. At the end of follow-up, 85% of patients (n = 11/13) had a healed IUI. Conclusion: Iatrogenic urinary tract injury is not uncommon in salvage procedures for pelvic sepsis, even in an experienced tertiary referral centre. Most injuries were diagnosed postoperatively which affects the severity of these complications, emphasising the need to improve intraoperative diagnostic modalities.</p

Fluorescence perfusion assessment of vascular ligation during ileal pouch-anal anastomosis

Background: Intraoperative fluorescence angiography (FA) is of potential added value during ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA), especially after vascular ligation as part of lengthening measures. In this study, time to fluorescent enhancement during FA was evaluated in patients with or without vascular ligation during IPAA. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study of all consecutive patients that underwent FA-guided IPAA between August 2018 and December 2019 in our tertiary referral centre. Vascular ligation was defined as disruption of the ileocolic arcade or ligation of interconnecting terminal ileal branches. FA was performed before and after ileoanal anastomotic reconstruction. During FA, time to fluorescent enhancement was recorded at different sites of the pouch. Results: Thirty-eight patients [55.3% male, median age 45 years (IQR 24–51 years)] were included, of whom the majority (89.5%) underwent a modified-2-stage restorative proctocolectomy. Vascular ligation was performed in 15 patients (39.5%), and concerned central ligation of the ileocolic arcade in 3 cases, interconnecting branches in 10, and a combination in 2. For the entire cohort, time between indocyanine green (ICG) injection and first fluorescent signal in the pouch was 20 s (IQR 15–31 s) before and 25 s (IQR 20–36 s) after anal anastomotic reconstruction. Time from ICG injection to the first fluorescent signal at the inlet, anvil and blind loop of the pouch were non-significantly prolonged in patients that received vascular ligation. Conclusions: Results from this study indicate that time to fluorescence enhancement during FA might be prolonged due to arterial rerouting through the arcade or venous outflow obstruction in case of vascular ligation.</p

Fluorescence perfusion assessment of vascular ligation during ileal pouch-anal anastomosis

Background: Intraoperative fluorescence angiography (FA) is of potential added value during ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA), especially after vascular ligation as part of lengthening measures. In this study, time to fluorescent enhancement during FA was evaluated in patients with or without vascular ligation during IPAA. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study of all consecutive patients that underwent FA-guided IPAA between August 2018 and December 2019 in our tertiary referral centre. Vascular ligation was defined as disruption of the ileocolic arcade or ligation of interconnecting terminal ileal branches. FA was performed before and after ileoanal anastomotic reconstruction. During FA, time to fluorescent enhancement was recorded at different sites of the pouch. Results: Thirty-eight patients [55.3% male, median age 45 years (IQR 24–51 years)] were included, of whom the majority (89.5%) underwent a modified-2-stage restorative proctocolectomy. Vascular ligation was performed in 15 patients (39.5%), and concerned central ligation of the ileocolic arcade in 3 cases, interconnecting branches in 10, and a combination in 2. For the entire cohort, time between indocyanine green (ICG) injection and first fluorescent signal in the pouch was 20 s (IQR 15–31 s) before and 25 s (IQR 20–36 s) after anal anastomotic reconstruction. Time from ICG injection to the first fluorescent signal at the inlet, anvil and blind loop of the pouch were non-significantly prolonged in patients that received vascular ligation. Conclusions: Results from this study indicate that time to fluorescence enhancement during FA might be prolonged due to arterial rerouting through the arcade or venous outflow obstruction in case of vascular ligation.</p

Comparison of proactive and conventional treatment of anastomotic leakage in rectal cancer surgery:a multicentre retrospective cohort series

Purpose: Comparative studies on efficacy of treatment strategies for anastomotic leakage (AL) after low anterior resection (LAR) are almost non-existent. This study aimed to compare different proactive and conservative treatment approaches for AL after LAR. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included all patients with AL after LAR in three university hospitals. Different treatment approaches were compared, including a pairwise comparison of conventional treatment and endoscopic vacuum-assisted surgical closure (EVASC). Primary outcomes were healed and functional anastomosis rates at end of follow-up. Results: Overall, 103 patients were included, of which 59 underwent conventional treatment and 23 EVASC. Median number of reinterventions was 1 after conventional treatment, compared to 7 after EVASC (p &lt; 0.01). Median follow-up was 39 and 25 months, respectively. Healed anastomosis rate was 61% after conventional treatment, compared to 78% after EVASC (p = 0.139). Functional anastomosis rate was higher after EVASC, compared to conventional treatment (78% vs. 54%, p = 0.045). Early initiation of EVASC in the first week after primary surgery resulted in better functional anastomosis rate compared to later initiation (100% vs. 55%, p = 0.008). Conclusion: Proactive treatment of AL consisting of EVASC resulted in improved healed and functional anastomosis rates for AL after LAR for rectal cancer, compared to conventional treatment. If EVASC was initiated within the first week after index surgery, a 100% functional anastomosis rate was achievable.</p

Comparison of proactive and conventional treatment of anastomotic leakage in rectal cancer surgery:a multicentre retrospective cohort series

Purpose: Comparative studies on efficacy of treatment strategies for anastomotic leakage (AL) after low anterior resection (LAR) are almost non-existent. This study aimed to compare different proactive and conservative treatment approaches for AL after LAR. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included all patients with AL after LAR in three university hospitals. Different treatment approaches were compared, including a pairwise comparison of conventional treatment and endoscopic vacuum-assisted surgical closure (EVASC). Primary outcomes were healed and functional anastomosis rates at end of follow-up. Results: Overall, 103 patients were included, of which 59 underwent conventional treatment and 23 EVASC. Median number of reinterventions was 1 after conventional treatment, compared to 7 after EVASC (p &lt; 0.01). Median follow-up was 39 and 25 months, respectively. Healed anastomosis rate was 61% after conventional treatment, compared to 78% after EVASC (p = 0.139). Functional anastomosis rate was higher after EVASC, compared to conventional treatment (78% vs. 54%, p = 0.045). Early initiation of EVASC in the first week after primary surgery resulted in better functional anastomosis rate compared to later initiation (100% vs. 55%, p = 0.008). Conclusion: Proactive treatment of AL consisting of EVASC resulted in improved healed and functional anastomosis rates for AL after LAR for rectal cancer, compared to conventional treatment. If EVASC was initiated within the first week after index surgery, a 100% functional anastomosis rate was achievable.</p

Конференции

STUDY QUESTION: What is the cost-effectiveness of in vitro fertilization(IVF) with conventional ovarian stimulation, single embryotransfer (SET) and subsequent cryocycles or IVF in a modified natural cycle (MNC) compared with intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (IUI-COH) as a first-line treatment in couples with unexplained subfertility and an unfavourable prognosis on natural conception?. SUMMARY ANSWER: Both IVF strategies are significantly more expensive when compared with IUI-COH, without being significantly more effective. In the comparison between IVF-MNC and IUI-COH, the latter is the dominant strategy. Whether IVF-SET is cost-effective depends on society's willingness to pay for an additional healthy child. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: IUI-COH and IVF, either after conventional ovarian stimulation or in a MNC, are used as first-line treatments for couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility. As IUI-COH is less invasive, this treatment is usually offered before proceeding to IVF. Yet, as conventional IVF with SET may lead to higher pregnancy rates in fewer cycles for a lower multiple pregnancy rate, some have argued to start with IVF instead of IUI-COH. In addition, IVF in the MNC is considered to be a more patient friendly and less costly form of IVF. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomized noninferiority trial. Between January 2009 and February 2012, 602 couples with unexplained infertility and a poor prognosis on natural conception were allocated to three cycles of IVF-SET including frozen embryo transfers, six cycles of IVF-MNC or six cycles of IUI-COH. These couples were followed until 12 months after randomization. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We collected data on resource use related to treatment, medication and pregnancy from the case report forms. We calculated unit costs from various sources. For each of the three strategies, we calculated the mean costs and effectiveness. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated for IVF-SET compared with IUI-COH and for IVF-MNC compared with IUI-COH. Nonparametric bootstrap resampling was used to investigate the effect of uncertainty in our estimates. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: There were 104 healthy children (52%) born in the IVF-SET group, 83 (43%) the IVF-MNC group and 97 (47%) in the IUI-COH group. The mean costs per couple were (sic)7187 for IVF-SET, (sic)8206 for IVF-MNC and (sic)5070 for IUI-COH. Compared with IUI-COH, the costs for IVF-SET and IVF-MNC were significantly higher (mean differences (sic)2117; 95% CI: (sic)1544-(sic)2657 and (sic)3136, 95% CI: (sic)2519-(sic)3754, respectively). The ICER for IVF-SET compared with IUI-COH was (sic)43 375 for the birth of an additional healthy child. In the comparison of IVF-MNC to IUI-COH, the latter was the dominant strategy, i.e. more effective at lower costs. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We only report on direct health care costs. The present analysis is limited to 12 months. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Since we found no evidence in support of offering IVF as a first-line strategy in couples with unexplained and mild subfertility, IUI-COH should remain the treatment of first choice