No abstract

ICG fluorescence imaging seems to reduce AL rates following colorectal surgery for cancer. However, the inherent bias of the non-randomized studies included, and their differences in AL definition and diagnosis could have influenced results. Large well-designed RCTs are needed to provide evidence for its routine use in colorectal surgery.

Aim Little is known about the pathophysiology of low anterior resection syndrome (LARS), and evidence concerning the management of patients diagnosed with this condition is scarce. The aim of the LARS Expert Advisory Panel was to develop practical guidance for healthcare professionals dealing with LARS. Method The ‘Management guidelines for low anterior resection syndrome’ (MANUEL) project was promoted by a team of eight experts in the assessment and management of patients with LARS. After a face‐to‐face meeting, a strategy was agreed to create a comprehensive, practical guide covering all aspects that were felt to be clinically relevant. Eight themes were decided upon and working groups established. Each working group generated a draft; these were collated by another collaborator into a manuscript, after a conference call. This was circulated among the collaborators, and it was revised following the comments received. A lay patient revised the manuscript, and contributed to a section containing a patient's perspective. The manuscript was again circulated and finalized. A final teleconference was held at the end of the project. Results The guidance covers all aspects of LARS management, from pathophysiology, to assessment and management. Given the lack of sound evidence and the often poor quality of the studies, most of the recommendations and conclusions are based on the opinions of the experts. Conclusions The MANUEL project provides an up‐to‐date practical summary of the available evidence concerning LARS, with useful directions for healthcare professional and patients suffering from this debilitating condition.

This brief discusses the definition of nominal group technique; how to prepare for it; the four-step process to conduct it; when to use it; and the disadvantages and advantages of its use.

In this study, the risk of having major LARS increases with total mesorectal excision and both neoadjuvant and adjuvant radiotherapy. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

ObjectiveThe stapled transanal rectal resection (STARR) in patients with defecation disorders is limited by the shape and capacity of the circular stapler. A new device has been recently developed, the Contour® Transtar™ stapler, in order to improve the safety and effectiveness of the STARR technique. The study has been designed to confirm this declaration.MethodFrom January to June 2007 a prospective European multicentre study of consecutive patients with defecation disorder caused by internal rectal prolapse underwent the new STARR technique. The assessment of perioperative morbidity and functional outcome after 6 weeks, 3 and 12 months was documented by different scores.ResultsIn all 75 patients, median age 64, the Transtar procedure was performed with 9% intraoperative difficulties, 7% postoperative complications and no mortality. The mean reduction of the ODS score was −15.6 (95%−CI: −17.3 to −13.8, P < 0.0001), mean reduction of SSS was −12.6 (95%−CI: −14.2 to −11.2; P < 0.0001). 41% stated improvement of their continence status by CCF score, only 4 patients (5%) had deterioration.ConclusionThe Transtar procedure is technically demanding, with good functional results similar to the conventional STARR.

Aim Low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) is pragmatically defined as disordered bowel function after rectal resection leading to a detriment in quality of life. This broad characterization does not allow for precise estimates of prevalence. The LARS score was designed as a simple tool for clinical evaluation of LARS. Although the LARS score has good clinical utility, it may not capture all important aspects that patients may experience. The aim of this collaboration was to develop an international consensus definition of LARS that encompasses all aspects of the condition and is informed by all stakeholders. Method This international patient–provider initiative used an online Delphi survey, regional patient consultation meetings, and an international consensus meeting. Three expert groups participated: patients, surgeons and other health professionals from five regions (Australasia, Denmark, Spain, Great Britain and Ireland, and North America) and in three languages (English, Spanish, and Danish). The primary outcome measured was the priorities for the definition of LARS. Results Three hundred twenty‐five participants (156 patients) registered. The response rates for successive rounds of the Delphi survey were 86%, 96% and 99%. Eighteen priorities emerged from the Delphi survey. Patient consultation and consensus meetings refined these priorities to eight symptoms and eight consequences that capture essential aspects of the syndrome. Sampling bias may have been present, in particular, in the patient panel because social media was used extensively in recruitment. There was also dominance of the surgical panel at the final consensus meeting despite attempts to mitigate this. Conclusion This is the first definition of LARS developed with direct input from a large international patient panel. The involvement of patients in all phases has ensured that the definition presented encompasses the vital aspects of the patient experience of LARS. The novel separation of symptoms and consequences may enable greater sensitivity to detect changes in LARS over time and with intervention.

Objectives: To assess the prevalence of surgical site infection (SSI) after elective operations for colon and rectal cancer after the application of evidence-based preventive measures and to identify risk factors for SSI.