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

Prospective multicentre observational cohort to assess quality of life, functional outcomes and cost-effectiveness following minimally invasive surgical techniques for rectal cancer in 'dedicated centres' in the Netherlands (VANTAGE trial):A protocol

Introduction: Total mesorectal excision is the standard of care for rectal cancer, which can be performed using open, laparoscopic, robot-assisted and transanal technique. Large prospective (randomised controlled) trials comparing these techniques are lacking, do not take into account the learning curve and have short-term or long-term oncological results as their primary endpoint, without addressing quality of life, functional outcomes and cost-effectiveness. Comparative data with regard to these outcomes are necessary to identify the optimal minimally invasive technique and provide guidelines for clinical application. Methods and analysis: This trial will be a prospective observational multicentre cohort trial, aiming to compare laparoscopic, robot-assisted and transanal total mesorectal excision in adult patients with rectal cancer performed by experienced surgeons in dedicated centres. Data collection will be performed in collaboration with the prospective Dutch ColoRectal Audit and the Prospective Dutch ColoRectal Cancer Cohort. Quality of life at 1 year postoperatively will be the primary outcome. Functional outcomes, cost-effectiveness, short-term outcomes and long-term oncological outcomes will be the secondary outcomes. In total, 1200 patients will be enrolled over a period of 2 years in 26 dedicated centres in the Netherlands. The study is registered at https://www.trialregister.nl/9734 (NL9734). Ethics and dissemination: Data will be collected through collaborating parties, who already obtained approval by their medical ethical committee. Participants will be included in the trial after having signed informed consent. Results of this study will be disseminated to participating centres, patient organisations, (inter)national society meetings and peer-reviewed journals

Implications of the new MRI-based rectum definition according to the sigmoid take-off:multicentre cohort study

Background: The introduction of the sigmoid take-off definition might lead to a shift from rectal cancers to sigmoid cancers. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to determine the clinical impact of the new definition. Methods: In this multicentre retrospective cohort study, patients were included if they underwent an elective, curative total mesorectal excision for non-metastasized rectal cancer between January 2015 and December 2017, were registered in the Dutch Colorectal Audit as having a rectal cancer according to the previous definition, and if MRI was available. All selected rectal cancer cases were reassessed using the sigmoid take-off definition. The primary outcome was the number of patients reassessed with a sigmoid cancer. Secondary outcomes included differences between the newly defined rectal and sigmoid cancer patients in treatment, perioperative results, and 3-year oncological outcomes (overall and disease-free survivals, and local and systemic recurrences). Results: Out of 1742 eligible patients, 1302 rectal cancer patients were included. Of these, 170 (13.1 per cent) were reclassified as having sigmoid cancer. Among these, 93 patients (54.7 per cent) would have been offered another adjuvant or neoadjuvant treatment according to the Dutch guideline. Patients with a sigmoid tumour after reassessment had a lower 30-day postoperative complication rate (33.5 versus 48.3 per cent, P &lt; 0.001), lower reintervention rate (8.8 versus 17.4 per cent, P &lt; 0.007), and a shorter length of stay (a median of 5 days (i.q.r. 4-7) versus a median of 6 days (i.q.r. 5-9), P &lt; 0.001). Three-year oncological outcomes were comparable. Conclusion: Using the anatomical landmark of the sigmoid take-off, 13.1 per cent of the previously classified patients with rectal cancer had sigmoid cancer, and 54.7 per cent of these patients would have been treated differently with regard to neoadjuvant therapy or adjuvant therapy.</p

The learning curve of laparoscopic, robot-assisted and transanal total mesorectal excisions:a systematic review

Background The standard treatment of rectal carcinoma is surgical resection according to the total mesorectal excision principle, either by open, laparoscopic, robot-assisted or transanal technique. No clear consensus exists regarding the length of the learning curve for the minimal invasive techniques. This systematic review aims to provide an overview of the current literature regarding the learning curve of minimal invasive TME. Methods A systematic literature search was performed. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched for studies with the primary or secondary aim to assess the learning curve of either laparoscopic, robot-assisted or transanal TME for rectal cancer. The primary outcome was length of the learning curve per minimal invasive technique. Descriptive statistics were used to present results and the MINORS tool was used to assess risk of bias. Results 45 studies, with 7562 patients, were included in this systematic review. Length of the learning curve based on intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, pathological outcomes, or a composite endpoint using a risk-adjusted CUSUM analysis was 50 procedures for the laparoscopic technique, 32-75 procedures for the robot-assisted technique and 36-54 procedures for the transanal technique. Due to the low quality of studies and a high level of heterogeneity a meta-analysis could not be performed. Heterogeneity was caused by patient-related factors, surgeon-related factors and differences in statistical methods. Conclusion Current high-quality literature regarding length of the learning curve of minimal invasive TME techniques is scarce. Available literature suggests equal lengths of the learning curves of laparoscopic, robot-assisted and transanal TME. Well-designed studies, using adequate statistical methods are required to properly assess the learning curve, while taking into account patient-related and surgeon-related factors

Implications of the new MRI-based rectum definition according to the sigmoid take-off:multicentre cohort study

Background: The introduction of the sigmoid take-off definition might lead to a shift from rectal cancers to sigmoid cancers. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to determine the clinical impact of the new definition. Methods: In this multicentre retrospective cohort study, patients were included if they underwent an elective, curative total mesorectal excision for non-metastasized rectal cancer between January 2015 and December 2017, were registered in the Dutch Colorectal Audit as having a rectal cancer according to the previous definition, and if MRI was available. All selected rectal cancer cases were reassessed using the sigmoid take-off definition. The primary outcome was the number of patients reassessed with a sigmoid cancer. Secondary outcomes included differences between the newly defined rectal and sigmoid cancer patients in treatment, perioperative results, and 3-year oncological outcomes (overall and disease-free survivals, and local and systemic recurrences). Results: Out of 1742 eligible patients, 1302 rectal cancer patients were included. Of these, 170 (13.1 per cent) were reclassified as having sigmoid cancer. Among these, 93 patients (54.7 per cent) would have been offered another adjuvant or neoadjuvant treatment according to the Dutch guideline. Patients with a sigmoid tumour after reassessment had a lower 30-day postoperative complication rate (33.5 versus 48.3 per cent, P &lt; 0.001), lower reintervention rate (8.8 versus 17.4 per cent, P &lt; 0.007), and a shorter length of stay (a median of 5 days (i.q.r. 4-7) versus a median of 6 days (i.q.r. 5-9), P &lt; 0.001). Three-year oncological outcomes were comparable. Conclusion: Using the anatomical landmark of the sigmoid take-off, 13.1 per cent of the previously classified patients with rectal cancer had sigmoid cancer, and 54.7 per cent of these patients would have been treated differently with regard to neoadjuvant therapy or adjuvant therapy.</p

Cost analysis and cost-effectiveness of open versus laparoscopic versus robot-assisted versus transanal total mesorectal excision in patients with rectal cancer:a protocol for a systematic review

INTRODUCTION: Nowadays, most rectal tumours are treated open or minimally invasive, using laparoscopic, robot-assisted or transanal total mesorectal excision. However, insight into the total costs of these techniques is limited. Since all three techniques are currently being performed, including cost considerations in the choice of treatment technique may significantly impact future healthcare costs. Therefore, this systematic review aims to provide an overview of evidence regarding costs in patients with rectal cancer following open, laparoscopic, robot-assisted and transanal total mesorectal excision. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic search will be conducted for papers between January 2000 and March 2022. Databases PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases will be searched. Study selection, data extraction and quality assessment will be performed independently by four reviewers and discrepancies will be resolved through discussion. The Consensus Health Economic Criteria list will be used for assessing risk of bias. Total costs of the different techniques, consisting of but not limited to, theatre, in-hospital and postoperative costs, will be the primary outcome. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical approval is required, as there is no collection of patient data at an individual level. Findings will be disseminated widely, through peer-reviewed publication and presentation at relevant national and international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021261125

Near-infrared (NIR) perfusion angiography in minimally invasive colorectal surgery

Background: Anastomotic leakage is a devastating complication of colorectal surgery. However, there is no technology indicative of in situ perfusion of a laparoscopic colorectal anastomosis. Methods: We detail the use of near-infrared (NIR) laparoscopy (PinPoint System, NOVADAQ, Canada) in association with fluorophore [indocyanine green (ICG), 2.5mg/ml] injection in 30 consecutive patients who underwent elective minimally invasive colorectal resection using the simultaneous appearance of the cecum or distal ileum as positive control. Results: The median (range) age of the patients was 64 (40-81) years with a median (range) BMI of 26.7 (20-35.5)kg/m2. Twenty-four patients had left-sided resections (including six low anterior resections) and six had right-sided resections. Of the total, 25 operations were cancer resections and five were for benign disease [either diverticular strictures (n=3) or Crohn's disease (n=2)]. A high-quality intraoperative ICG angiogram was achieved in 29/30 patients. After ICG injection, median (range) time to perfusion fluorescence was 35 (15-45)s. Median (range) added time for the technique was 5 (3-9)min. Anastomotic perfusion was documented as satisfactory in every successful case and encouraged avoidance of defunctioning stomas in three patients with low anastomoses. There were no postoperative anastomotic leaks. Conclusion: Perfusion angiography of colorectal anastomosis at the time of their laparoscopic construction is feasible and readily achievable with minimal added intraoperative time. Further work is required to determine optimum sensitivity and threshold levels for assessment of perfusion sufficiency, in particular with regard to anastomotic viability