Surgical treatment for rectal cancer: An international perspective on what the medical gastroenterologist needs to know

Rectal cancer accounts for one third of all colorectal cancers. The age adjusted death rates from colorectal cancer have declined over recent decades due to a combination of colorectal cancer screening, improved diagnostic tests, improved standardized surgical technique, improved medical support, neoadjuvant chemotherapies and radiation treatment or combinations of these. Because of complex treatment algorithms, use of multidisciplinary teams in the management of rectal cancer patients has also been popularized. Medical gastroenterologists performing colonoscopies are frequently the first health care provider to raise the suspicion of a rectal cancer. Although the diagnosis depends on histological confirmation, the endoscopic presentation is almost diagnostic in many cases. In order to meet the patient’s immediate needs for information, it is important that the endoscopist has knowledge about the investigations and treatment options that will be required for their patient. The aim of this paper is to describe the modern preoperative investigations and operative procedures commonly offered to rectal cancer patients taking into account perspectives of three colorectal surgeons, practicing in the USA, Europe and Asia

Clinical outcomes of surgical management for recurrent rectal prolapse: a multicenter retrospective study

Purpose: There are few reports on outcomes following surgical repair of recurrent rectal prolapse. The purpose of this study was to examine surgical outcomes for recurrent rectal prolapse. Methods: We conducted a multicenter retrospective study of patients who underwent surgery for recurrent rectal prolapse. This study used data collected by the Korean Anorectal Physiology and Pelvic Floor Disorder Study Group. Results: A total of 166 patients who underwent surgery for recurrent rectal prolapse were registered retrospectively between 2011 and 2016 in 8 referral hospitals. Among them, 153 patients were finally enrolled, excluding 13 patients who were not followed up postoperatively. Median follow-up duration was 40 months (range, 0.2-129.3 months). Methods of surgical repair for recurrent rectal prolapse included perineal approach (n = 96) and abdominal approach (n = 57). Postoperative complications occurred in 16 patients (10.5%). There was no significant difference in complication rate between perineal and abdominal approach groups. While patients who underwent the perineal approach were older and more fragile, patients who underwent the abdominal approach had longer operation time and admission days (P < 0.05). Overall, 29 patients (19.0%) showed re-recurrence after surgery. Among variables, none affected the re-recurrence. Conclusion: For the recurrent rectal prolapse, the perineal approach is used for the old and fragile patients. The postoperative complications and re-recurrence rate between perineal and abdominal approach were not different significantly. No factor including surgical method affected re-recurrence for recurrent rectal prolapse. [Ann Surg Treat Res 2022;102(4):234-240]N