No abstract

published version features the final layout of the paper including the volume, issue and page numbers. Link to publication General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal.If the publication is distributed under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the "Taverne" license above, please follow below link for the End User

BACKGROUND: Even years after a low anterior resection, many patients experience persisting bowel complaints. This is referred to as low anterior resection syndrome and has a severe adverse effect on quality of life. Its diverse nature makes it difficult to find a gold-standard therapy for this syndrome. However, most importantly, postoperative guidance appears to be suboptimal. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe and evaluate the implementation of a multimodel guidance with structured screening and treatment options. DESIGN: A retrospective, comparative, cross-sectional study was conducted. Data of patients treated before protocol implementation were compared with a cohort after implementation. SETTINGS: This was a single-center study. PATIENTS: Patients seen after low anterior resection or sigmoid resection between 2010 and 2017 for colorectal malignancy were included. INTERVENTION: This included implementation of a postoperative guidance protocol. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Bowel dysfunction was assessed by the low anterior resection score, whereas the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaires (C30 and CR29) assessed general and colorectal-specific quality of life. RESULTS: A total of 243 patients were included; 195 were guided before and 48 after protocol implementation. Patients who underwent low anterior resection after protocol implementation showed significantly lower median low anterior resection scores (31 vs 18; p = 0.02) and less major low anterior resection syndrome (51.9% vs 26.3%; p = 0.045). Patients who underwent sigmoid resection did not present with similar changes. Multiple quality-of-life domains showed clinically significant positive changes since our postoperative protocol was implemented. LIMITATIONS: Patient characteristics are not comparable between groups, which makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend that others reconsider their current postoperative management for patients with rectal cancer and suggest a change to a comparable noninvasive, patient-driven postoperative guidance to enhance patient coping mechanisms and self-management and therefore improve their quality of life. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A970. IMPLEMENTACIÓN DE UNA GUÍA POSTOPERATORIA DE DETECCIÓN Y TRATAMIENTO PARA EL SÍNDROME DE RESECCIÓN ANTERIOR BAJA: RESULTADOS PRELIMINARES ANTECEDENTES: Incluso años después de una resección anterior baja, muchos pacientes experimentan quejas intestinales persistentes. Esto se conoce como síndrome de resección anterior baja y tiene un efecto adverso grave en la calidad de vida. Su naturaleza diversa hace que sea difícil encontrar una terapia patrón de oro para este síndrome. Pero lo más importante, la guía postoperatoria parece ser subóptima. OBJETIVO: Describir y evaluar la implementación de una guía de múltiples modelos con opciones estructuradas de selección y tratamiento. DISENO: Se realizó un estudio retrospectivo de corte transversal comparativo. Los datos de los pacientes tratados antes de la implementación del protocolo se compararon con una cohorte después de la implementación. MARCO: Centro de estudio único. PACIENTES: Pacientes después de resección anterior baja o resección sigmoidea entre 2010–2017 por neoplasia colorectal. INTERVENCIÓN: La implementación de un protocolo de guía postoperatoria. PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO: La disfunción intestinal se evaluó mediante la puntuación de resección anterior baja, mientras que la Organización Europea para la Investigación y Tratamiento de Cuestionarios de Calidad de Vida del Cáncer (C30 y CR29) evaluó la calidad de vida general y específicamente colorectal. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron 243 pacientes, 195 fueron guiados antes y 48 después de la implementación del protocolo. Los pacientes que se sometieron a una resección anterior baja después de la implementación del protocolo mostraron puntuaciones de resección anterior bajas medias significativamente más bajas (31 frente a 18; p = 0,02) y menos puntuaciones de síndrome de resección anterior baja (51,9% frente a 26,3%; p = 0,045). Los pacientes sometidos a resección sigmoidea no presentaron cambios similares. Los múltiples dominios de calidad de vida mostraron cambios positivos clínicamente significativos desde que se implementó nuestro protocolo postoperatorio. LIMITACIONES: Las características de los pacientes no son comparables entre los grupos, lo que dificulta sacar conclusiones firmes. CONCLUSIÓNES: Recomendamos a otros que reconsideren su manejo postoperatorio actual para pacientes con cáncer de recto y sugerimos un cambio a una guía postoperatoria impulsada por el paciente no invasiva comparable para mejorar los mecanismos de afrontamiento y el autocontrol de los pacientes y, por lo tanto, mejorar su calidad de vida. Vea el Video del Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/A970.

Objective:To investigate the effects of PFR after LAR compared to usual care without PFR.Summary of background data:Functional complaints, including fecal incontinence, often occur after LAR for rectal cancer. Controversy exists about the effectiveness of PFR in improving such postoperative functional outcomes.Methods:This was a multicenter, randomized controlled trial involving 17 Dutch centers. Patients after LAR for rectal cancer were randomly assigned (1:1) to usual care or PFR and stratified by sex and administration of neoadjuvant therapy. Selection was not based on severity of complaints at baseline. Baseline measurements were taken 3 months after surgery without temporary stoma construction or 6 weeks after stoma closure. The primary outcome measure was the change in Wexner incontinence scores 3 months after randomization. Secondary outcomes were fecal incontinence-related quality of life, colorectal-specific quality of life, and the LARS scores.Results:Between October 2017 and March 2020, 128 patients were enrolled and 106 randomly assigned (PFR n = 51, control n = 55); 95 patients (PFR n = 44, control n = 51) were assessable for final analysis. PFR did not lead to larger changes in Wexner incontinence scores in nonselected patients after LAR compared to usual care [PFR: –2.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) –3.3 to –1.4, control: –1.3, 95% CI –2.2 to –0.4, P = 0.13]. However, PFR was associated with less urgency at follow-up (odds ratio 0.22, 95% CI 0.06–0.86). Patients without near-complete incontinence reported larger Wexner score improvements after PFR (PFR: –2.1, 95% CI –3.1 to –1.1, control: –0.7, 95% CI –1.6 to 0.2, P = 0.045). For patients with at least moderate incontinence PFR resulted in relevant improvements in all fecal incontinence-related quality of life domains, while the control group deteriorated. These improvements were even larger when patients with near-complete incontinence were excluded. No serious adverse PFR-related events occurred.Conclusion:No benefit was found of PFR in all patients but several subgroups were identified that did benefit from PFR, such as patients with urgency or with at least moderate incontinence and no near-complete incontinence. A selective referral policy (65%–85% of all patients) is suggested to improve postoperative functional outcomes for patients after LAR for rectal cancer.Trial Registration:Netherlands Trial Registration, NTR5469, registered on 3 September 2015.

Background Total mesorectal excision (TME) gives excellent oncological results in rectal cancer treatment, but patients may experience functional problems. A novel approach to performing TME is by single‐port transanal minimally invasive surgery. This systematic review evaluated the functional outcomes and quality of life after transanal and laparoscopic TME. Methods A comprehensive search in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase and the trial registers was conducted in May 2019. PRISMA guidelines were used. Data for meta‐analysis were pooled using a random‐effects model. Results A total of 11 660 studies were identified, from which 14 studies and six conference abstracts involving 846 patients (599 transanal TME, 247 laparoscopic TME) were included. A substantial number of patients experienced functional problems consistent with low anterior resection syndrome (LARS). Meta‐analysis found no significant difference in major LARS between the two approaches (risk ratio 1·13, 95 per cent c.i. 0·94 to 1·35; P = 0·18). However, major heterogeneity was present in the studies together with poor reporting of functional baseline assessment. Conclusion No differences in function were observed between transanal and laparoscopic TME.