Annals of Coloproctology

Original Articles

Colorectal cancer

International Society of University Colon and Rectal Surgeons survey of surgeons’ preference on rectal cancer treatment: Audrius Dulskas, Philip F. Caushaj, Domas Grigoravicius, Liu Zheng, Richard Fortunato, Joseph W. Nunoo-Mensah, Narimantas E. Samalavicius; Ann Coloproctol. 2023;39(4):307-314. Published online October 11, 2022; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2022.00255.0036

3,837 View
114 Download
4 Web of Science
5 Citations

Graphical Abstract Abstract PDF Supplementary Material

Purpose
Rectal cancer treatment has a wide range of possible approaches from radical extirpative surgery to nonoperative watchful waiting following chemoradiotherapy, with or without, additional chemotherapy. Our goal was to assess the personal opinion of active practicing surgeons on rectal cancer treatment if he/she was the patient.
Methods
A panel of the International Society of University Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ISUCRS) selected 10 questions that were included in a questionnaire that included other items including demographics. The questionnaire was distributed electronically to ISUCRS fellows and other surgeons included in our database and remained open from April 16 to 28, 2020.
Results
One hundred sixty-three specialists completed the survey. The majority of surgeons (n=65, 39.9%) chose the minimally invasive (laparoscopic) surgery for their personal treatment of rectal cancer. For low-lying rectal cancer T1 and T2, the treatment choice was standard chemoradiation+local excision (n=60, 36.8%) followed by local excision±chemoradiotherapy if needed (n=55, 33.7%). In regards to locally advanced low rectal cancer T3 or greater, the preference of the responders was for laparoscopic surgery (n=65, 39.9%). We found a statistically significant relationship between surgeons’ age and their preference for minimally invasive techniques demonstrating an age-based bias on senior surgeons’ inclination toward open approach.
Conclusion
Our survey reveals an age-based preference by surgeons for minimally invasive surgical techniques as well as organ-preserving techniques for personal treatment of treating rectal cancer. Only 1/4 of specialists do adhere to the international guidelines for treating early rectal cancer.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Performance reporting design in artificial intelligence studies using image-based TNM staging and prognostic parameters in rectal cancer: a systematic review
Minsung Kim, Taeyong Park, Bo Young Oh, Min Jeong Kim, Bum-Joo Cho, Il Tae Son
Annals of Coloproctology.2024; 40(1): 13. CrossRef
Sex Disparities in Rectal Cancer Surgery: An In-Depth Analysis of Surgical Approaches and Outcomes
Chungyeop Lee, In Ja Park
The World Journal of Men's Health.2024; 42(2): 304. CrossRef
Effects of Adjuvant Chemotherapy on Oncologic Outcomes in Patients With Stage ⅡA Rectal Cancer Above the Peritoneal Reflection Who Did Not Undergo Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy
Hyo Seon Ryu, Jong Lyul Lee, Chan Wook Kim, Yong Sik Yoon, In Ja Park, Seok-Byung Lim, Yong Sang Hong, Tae Won Kim, Chang Sik Yu
Clinical Colorectal Cancer.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Comparative analysis of organ preservation attempt and radical surgery in clinical T2N0 mid to low rectal cancer
Hyeung-min Park, Jaram Lee, Soo Young Lee, Chang Hyun Kim, Hyeong Rok Kim
International Journal of Colorectal Disease.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Unveiling the profound advantages of total neoadjuvant therapy in rectal cancer: a trailblazing exploration
Kyung Uk Jung, Hyung Ook Kim, Hungdai Kim, Donghyoun Lee, Chinock Cheong
Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research.2023; 105(6): 341. CrossRef

Malignant disease, Functional outcomes

The Benefits of Colorectal Surgery Surveys in Australia and New Zealand: Auerilius Erastus Ricardo Hamilton, Amelia Alice Lin, Christopher John Young; Ann Coloproctol. 2020;36(2):102-111. Published online April 30, 2020; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2019.09.17

3,471 View
61 Download
2 Web of Science
2 Citations

Abstract PDF Supplementary Material

Purpose
Pertaining to the Colorectal Surgery Society of Australia and New Zealand (CSSANZ) Executive and Research Support Committee, this study aimed to assess the usefulness and outcomes of surveys sent out by the society to its members.
Methods
From 2009 to 2017, CSSANZ members received 38 surveys, most of which were distributed from within the society, and a few of which originated from other affiliated groups. Surveys were categorised by type, topics, times required for completion, delivery method, response rates, and advancement to publication.
Results
Of 38 surveys, 20 (53%) were published and 18 remain unpublished. Four surveys were distributed annually on average, with 2.2 published annually on average, with a mean impact factor of 2.41 ± 1.55. Mean time to publication was 31 ± 17 months. Surveys contributed to 13 publications (34%). The most common survey topics were rectal cancer decisionmaking, in 6 publications (16%), preoperative assessment of colorectal patients, in 5 publications (13%), and anal physiology: continence and defaecation, in 4 publications (11%). Publication of surveys was not related to the number of surveys distributed per year, the number of questions per survey, or the time required by respondents to complete the surveys.
Conclusion
Most of the CSSANZ-distributed surveys resulted in publications, and one third of the surveys contributed to higher degrees obtained by investigators. These surveys aid research into areas that are otherwise difficult to assess, often indicating areas for future research.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Survey Research Among Neurosurgeons: A Bibliometric Review of the Characteristics, Quality, and Citation Predictors of the Top 50 Most-Influential Publications in the Neurosurgical Literature
Abdulhakim B Jamjoom, Abdulhadi Y Gahtani, Jude M Jamjoom, Belal M Sharab, Omar M Jamjoom, Moajeb T AlZahrani
Cureus.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Geographical Variation in the Use of Diverting Loop Ileostomy in Australia and New Zealand Colorectal Surgeons
David A. Clark, Bree Stephensen, Aleksandra Edmundson, Daniel Steffens, Michael Solomon
Annals of Coloproctology.2021; 37(5): 337. CrossRef

Malignant disease, Rectal cancer, Functional outcomes

Validation of Korean Version of Low Anterior Resection Syndrome Score Questionnaire: Chang Woo Kim, Woon Kyung Jeong, Gyung Mo Son, Ik Yong Kim, Ji Won Park, Seung-Yong Jeong, Kyu Joo Park, Suk-Hwan Lee; Ann Coloproctol. 2020;36(2):83-87. Published online February 11, 2020; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2019.08.01

5,187 View
205 Download
18 Web of Science
17 Citations

Abstract PDF

Purpose
Patients who undergo radical surgery for rectal cancer often experience low anterior resection syndrome (LARS). Symptoms of this syndrome include frequent bowel movements, gas incontinence, fecal incontinence, fragmentation, and urgency. The aim of this study was to investigate the convergent validity, discriminative validity, and reliability of the Korean version of the LARS score questionnaire.
Methods
The English LARS score questionnaire was translated into Korean using the forward-and-back translation method. A total of 146 patients who underwent radical surgery for rectal cancer answered the Korean version of the LARS score questionnaire including an anchor question assessing the impact of bowel function. Participants answered the questionnaire once more after 2 weeks.
Results
The Korean LARS score questionnaire showed high convergent validity in terms of high correlation between the LARS score and quality of life (perfect fit 55.5% vs. moderate fit 37.6% vs. no fit 6.8%, respectively; P < 0.001). The LARS score also showed good discriminative validity between groups of patients differing by sex (29 for males vs. 25 for females; P = 0.014), tumor level (29 for ≤8 cm vs. 24 for >8 cm; P = 0.021), and radiotherapy (32 for yes vs. 24 for no; P = 0.001). The LARS score also demonstrated high reliability at test-retest with no difference between scores at the first and second tests (intraclass correlation coefficient: Q1 = 0.932; Q2 = 0.909, Q3 = 0.944, Q4 = 0.931, and Q5 = 0.942; P < 0.001, respectively).
Conclusion
The Korean version of the LARS score questionnaire has proven to be a valid and reliable tool for measuring LARS in Korean patients with rectal cancer.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Bowel dysfunction and lower urinary tract symptoms on quality of life after sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer: A cross-sectional study
Hyekyung Kim, Hyedan Kim, Ok-Hee Cho
European Journal of Oncology Nursing.2024; 69: 102524. CrossRef
Effectiveness of personalized treatment stage-adjusted digital therapeutics in colorectal cancer: a randomized controlled trial
Inah Kim, Ji Young Lim, Sun Woo Kim, Dong Wook Shin, Hee Cheol Kim, Yoon Ah Park, Yoon Suk Lee, Jung-Myun Kwak, Seok Ho Kang, Ji Youl Lee, Ji Hye Hwang
BMC Cancer.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Low anterior resection syndrome
Seung‐Bum Ryoo
Annals of Gastroenterological Surgery.2023; 7(5): 719. CrossRef
Total neoadjuvant therapy with short-course radiotherapy Versus long-course neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in Locally Advanced Rectal cancer, Korean trial (TV-LARK trial): study protocol of a multicentre randomized controlled trial
Min Jung Kim, Dae Won Lee, Hyun-Cheol Kang, Ji Won Park, Seung-Bum Ryoo, Sae-Won Han, Kyung Su Kim, Eui Kyu Chie, Jae Hwan Oh, Woon Kyung Jeong, Byoung Hyuck Kim, Eun Mi Nam, Seung-Yong Jeong
BMC Cancer.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Validation of low anterior resection syndrome score in Brazil with Portuguese
Kelly C.L.R. Buzatti, Andy Petroianu, Søren Laurberg, Rodrigo G. Silva, Beatriz D.S. Rodrigues, Peter Christensen, Antonio Lacerda-Filho, Therese Juul
Annals of Coloproctology.2023; 39(5): 402. CrossRef
Preoperative sequential short-course radiation therapy and FOLFOX chemotherapy versus long-course chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer: a multicenter, randomized controlled trial (SOLAR trial)
Min Kyu Kang, Soo Yeun Park, Jun Seok Park, Hye Jin Kim, Jong Gwang Kim, Byung Woog Kang, Jin Ho Baek, Seung Hyun Cho, An Na Seo, Duck-Woo Kim, Jin Kim, Se Jin Baek, Ji Hoon Kim, Ji Yeon Kim, Gi Won Ha, Eun Jung Park, In Ja Park, Chang Hyun Kim, Hyun Kang
BMC Cancer.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Clinical Implication of Lateral Pelvic Lymph Node Metastasis in Rectal Cancer Treated with Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy
In Ja Park
The Ewha Medical Journal.2022; 45(1): 3. CrossRef
Low Anterior Resection Syndrome: Pathophysiology, Risk Factors, and Current Management
Seung Mi Yeo, Gyung Mo Son
The Ewha Medical Journal.2022;[Epub] CrossRef
Validation of the Vietnamese version of the low anterior resection syndrome score questionnaire
Tuong-Anh Mai-Phan, Vu Quang Pham
Annals of Coloproctology.2022;[Epub] CrossRef
Analgesic effect of structured anal skin care for perianal dermatitis after low anterior resection in the rectal cancer patients: prospective, single-center, open-label, therapeutic confirmatory, randomized clinical trial
Gyung Mo Son, In Young Lee, Mi Sook Yun, Jung-Hea Youn, Hong Min An, Kyung Hee Kim, Seung Mi Yeo, Bokyung Ku, Myeong Suk Kwon, Kun Hyung Kim
Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research.2022; 103(6): 360. CrossRef
Two dominant patterns of low anterior resection syndrome and their effects on patients’ quality of life
Min Jung Kim, Ji Won Park, Mi Ae Lee, Han-Ki Lim, Yoon-Hye Kwon, Seung-Bum Ryoo, Kyu Joo Park, Seung-Yong Jeong
Scientific Reports.2021;[Epub] CrossRef
Anterior resection syndrome: a randomized clinical trial of a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist (ramosetron) in male patients with rectal cancer
S -B Ryoo, J W Park, D W Lee, M A Lee, Y -H Kwon, M J Kim, S H Moon, S -Y Jeong, K J Park
British Journal of Surgery.2021; 108(6): 644. CrossRef
The incidence and risk factors of low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) after sphincter-preserving surgery of rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Rui Sun, Ziyi Dai, Yin Zhang, Junyang Lu, Yuelun Zhang, Yi Xiao
Supportive Care in Cancer.2021; 29(12): 7249. CrossRef
Defining low anterior resection syndrome (LARS): Scoring tools and patient-reported outcomes
Dr Rebekka Troller, Dr Jeremy Meyer, Mr Justin Davies
Seminars in Colon and Rectal Surgery.2021; 32(4): 100847. CrossRef
The Effect of Anastomotic Leakage on the Incidence and Severity of Low Anterior Resection Syndrome in Patients Undergoing Proctectomy: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis
Sungjin Kim, Sung Il Kang, So Hyun Kim, Jae-Hwang Kim
Annals of Coloproctology.2021; 37(5): 281. CrossRef
Robotic Intersphincteric Resection for Low Rectal Cancer: Technical Controversies and a Systematic Review on the Perioperative, Oncological, and Functional Outcomes
Guglielmo Niccolò Piozzi, Seon Hahn Kim
Annals of Coloproctology.2021; 37(6): 351. CrossRef
Functional outcomes after sphincter-preserving surgeries for low-lying rectal cancer: A review
Eun Jung Park, Seung Hyuk Baik
Precision and Future Medicine.2021; 5(4): 164. CrossRef

Mechanical Bowel Preparation and Prophylactic Antibiotic Administration in Colorectal Surgery: A Survey of the Current Status in Korea: Byung Mo Kang, Kil Yeon Lee, Sun Jin Park, Suk-Hwan Lee; Ann Coloproctol. 2013;29(4):160-166. Published online August 29, 2013; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2013.29.4.160

4,150 View
44 Download
19 Citations

Abstract PDF

Purpose

The usefulness of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) in colon surgery was recently challenged by many multicenter clinical trials and meta-analyses. The objectives of this study were to investigate current national opinions about MBP and prophylactic antibiotics (PA) and to provide preliminary data for developing future Korean guidelines for MBP and PA administration in colorectal surgery.

Methods

A questionnaire was mailed to 129 colorectal specialists. The questionnaires addressed the characteristics of the hospital, the MBP methods, and the uses of oral and intravenous antibiotics.

Results

A total of 73 questionnaires (56.6%) were returned. First, in regard to MBP methods, most surgeons (97.3%) used MBP for a mean of 1.36 days. Most surgeons (98.6%) implemented whole bowel irrigation and used polyethylene glycol (83.3%). Oral antibiotic use was indicated in over half (52.1%) of the responses, the average number of preoperative doses was three, and the mean time of administration was 24.2 hours prior to the operation. Finally, the majority of responders stated that they used intravenous antibiotics (95.9%). The responses demonstrated that second-generation cephalosporin-based regimens were most commonly prescribed, and 75% of the surgeons administered these regimens until three days after the operation.

Conclusion

The results indicate that most surgeons used MBP and intravenous antibiotics and that half of them administered oral PA in colorectal surgery preparations. The study recommends that the current Korean guidelines should be adapted to adequately reflect the medical status in Korea, to consider the medical environment of the various hospitals, and to establish more accurate and relevant guidelines.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

A meta‐analysis of the risk factors for surgical site infection in patients with colorectal cancer
Yani Chen, Hua Guo, Tian Gao, Jiale Yu, Yujia Wang, Haiquan Yu
International Wound Journal.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Surgical Site Infections in Colorectal Cancer Surgeries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Surgical Approach and Associated Risk Factors
Valentin Calu, Catalin Piriianu, Adrian Miron, Valentin Titus Grigorean
Life.2024; 14(7): 850. CrossRef
Uncovering the Function of MBP and Antibiotics in Preventing Surgical Site Infections during Colorectal Procedures
Agnes Sara Shibu, Rojin G. Raj, Rohit Singh Deo
Journal of Coloproctology.2024; 44(03): e209. CrossRef
Single-Dose Versus Multiple-Dose Prophylactic Antibiotics in Minimally Invasive Colorectal Surgery: A Propensity Score Matched Analysis
Ga Yoon Ku, Beom-jin Kim, Ji Won Park, Min Jung Kim, Seung-Bum Ryoo, Seung-Yong Jeong, Kyu Joo Park
Journal of Korean Medical Science.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Preoperative mechanical bowel preparation using conventional versus hyperosmolar polyethylene glycol-electrolyte lavage solution before laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer (TLUMP test): a phase III, multicenter randomized controlled non-inferiori
Tadashi Yoshida, Shigenori Homma, Nobuki Ichikawa, Yosuke Ohno, Yoichi Miyaoka, Hiroki Matsui, Ken Imaizumi, Hiroyuki Ishizu, Tohru Funakoshi, Masahiko Koike, Hirofumi Kon, Yo Kamiizumi, Yasuhiro Tani, Yoichi Minagawa Ito, Kazufumi Okada, Akinobu Taketomi
Journal of Gastroenterology.2023; 58(9): 883. CrossRef
The risk of surgical site infection of oral sulfate tablet versus sodium picosulfate for bowel preparation in colorectal cancer surgery: a randomized clinical trial
Sung Sil Park, Sung Chan Park, Dong-Eun Lee, Dong Woon Lee, Kiho Yu, Hyoung-Chul Park, Chang Won Hong, Dae Kyung Sohn, Kyung Su Han, Bun Kim, Byung Chang Kim, Jae Hwan Oh
Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research.2022; 103(2): 96. CrossRef
Preoperative Elemental Diet before Laparoscopic Anterior Resection in Patients with Advanced Stenotic Rectal Cancer
Tadashi Yoshida, Shigenori Homma, Nobuki Ichikawa, Hiroaki Iijima, Akinobu Taketomi
Journal of the Anus, Rectum and Colon.2021; 5(4): 395. CrossRef
Orale Antibiotikaprophylaxe zur Darmdekontamination vor elektiver kolorektaler Chirurgie
S. Flemming, C.-T. Germer
Der Chirurg.2020; 91(2): 128. CrossRef
Role of Mechanical Bowel Preparation for Elective Colorectal Surgery
Ik Yong Kim
The Korean Journal of Gastroenterology.2020; 75(2): 79. CrossRef
Update on risk factors of surgical site infection in colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Zhaohui Xu, Hui Qu, George Kanani, Zhong Guo, Yanying Ren, Xin Chen
International Journal of Colorectal Disease.2020; 35(12): 2147. CrossRef
Does Mechanical Bowel Preparation Ameliorate Surgical Performance in Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion?
Chang-Hoon Jeon, Han-Dong Lee, Nam-Su Chung
Global Spine Journal.2019; 9(7): 692. CrossRef
Mechanical Bowel Preparation Does Not Affect Clinical Severity of Anastomotic Leakage in Rectal Cancer Surgery
Woong Bae Ji, Koo Yong Hahn, Jung Myun Kwak, Dong Woo Kang, Se Jin Baek, Jin Kim, Seon Hahn Kim
World Journal of Surgery.2017; 41(5): 1366. CrossRef
Comparing Mechanical Bowel Preparation With Both Oral and Systemic Antibiotics Versus Mechanical Bowel Preparation and Systemic Antibiotics Alone for the Prevention of Surgical Site Infection After Elective Colorectal Surgery
Min Chen, Xue Song, Liang-zhou Chen, Zhi-dong Lin, Xue-li Zhang
Diseases of the Colon & Rectum.2016; 59(1): 70. CrossRef
Early Outcomes of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Colorectal Neoplasms According to Clinical Indications
Eui-Gon Youk, Dae Kyng Sohn, Chang Won Hong, Seong Dae Lee, Kyung Su Han, Byung Chang Kim, Hee Jin Chang, Mi-Jung Kim
Diseases of the Colon & Rectum.2016; 59(5): 403. CrossRef
Benefit of mechanical bowel preparation prior to elective colorectal surgery: current insights
A. C. A. Murray, R. P. Kiran
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery.2016; 401(5): 573. CrossRef
Is mechanical bowel preparation still necessary for gynecologic laparoscopic surgery? A meta‐analysis
Huaping Huang, Haiyan Wang, Mei He
Asian Journal of Endoscopic Surgery.2015; 8(2): 171. CrossRef
Nationwide Analysis of Outcomes of Bowel Preparation in Colon Surgery
Zhobin Moghadamyeghaneh, Mark H. Hanna, Joseph C. Carmichael, Steven D. Mills, Alessio Pigazzi, Ninh T. Nguyen, Michael J. Stamos
Journal of the American College of Surgeons.2015; 220(5): 912. CrossRef
Influence of Shorter Duration of Prophylactic Antibiotic Use on the Incidence of Surgical Site Infection Following Colorectal Cancer Surgery
Youn Young Park, Chang Woo Kim, Sun Jin Park, Kil Yeon Lee, Jung Joo Lee, Hye Ok Lee, Suk-Hwan Lee
Annals of Coloproctology.2015; 31(6): 235. CrossRef
Mechanical Bowel Preparation: Keep It or Abandon It?
Hungdai Kim
Annals of Coloproctology.2013; 29(4): 136. CrossRef

International society of university colon and rectal surgeons survey of surgeons’ preference on rectal cancer treatment: Published online November 30, 1999

348 View
0 Download

Abstract: tive watchful waiting following chemoradiotherapy, with or without, additional chemotherapy. Our goal was to assess the personal opinion of active practicing surgeons on rectal cancer treatment if he/she was the patient.
Methods
A panel of the International Society of University Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ISUCRS) selected 10 questions that were included in a questionnaire that included other items including demographics. The questionnaire was distributed electronically to ISUCRS fellows and other surgeons included in our database and remained open from April 16 to 28, 2020.
Results
One hundred sixty-three specialists completed the survey. The majority of surgeons (n=65, 39.9%) chose the minimally invasive (laparoscopic) surgery for their personal treatment of rectal cancer. For low-lying rectal cancer T1 and T2, the treatment choice was standard chemoradiation+local excision (n=60, 36.8%) followed by local excision±chemoradiotherapy if needed (n=55, 33.7%). In regards to locally advanced low rectal cancer T3 or greater, the preference of the responders was for laparoscopic surgery (n=65, 39.9%). We found a statistically significant relationship between surgeons’ age and their preference for minimally invasive techniques demonstrating an age-based bias on senior surgeons’ inclination toward open approach.
Conclusion
Our survey reveals an age-based preference by surgeons for minimally invasive surgical techniques as well as organ-preserving techniques for personal treatment of treating rectal cancer. Only 1/4 of specialists do adhere to the international guidelines for treating early rectal cancer.

First
Prev
Page of 1
Next
Last

Search