PURPOSE: The present study evaluated the effect of rectal washout in reducing local recurrence after resection for rectal cancer. METHODS: A literature search was performed on studies published since 1989 that compared rectal washout to no washout for rectal cancer resection. Primary end point was local cancer recurrence. Random-effect meta-analysis was used and subgroup analysis was performed. RESULTS: Five studies matched the selection criteria, and reported on 176 patients who underwent rectal washout and 256 who did not undergo washout. Different washout solutions were used in every study, and total mesorectal excision was not universally applied. Overall local recurrence rate was 8 percent (33/432). Local recurrence rate for rectal washout patients was 4.8 percent compared with 10.2 percent for patients who did not undergo rectal washout, a difference that was not statistically significant (odds ratio = 0.64; 95 percent confidence interval = 0.2-2.04). When only studies using total mesorectal excision were considered, there was no significant difference between the two groups (odds ratio = 1.21; 95 percent confidence interval = 0.37-3.92). CONCLUSIONS: Although no definitive conclusions may be drawn because of the nonrandomized nature of the included studies, rectal washout is relatively risk-free and adds little to the operative time. This may be performed until a randomized, controlled trial is undertaken to resolve this contentious issue.
PURPOSE: The present study evaluated the effect of rectal washout in reducing local recurrence after resection for rectal cancer. METHODS: A literature search was performed on studies published since 1989 that compared rectal washout to no washout for rectal cancer resection. Primary end point was local cancer recurrence. Random-effect meta-analysis was used and subgroup analysis was performed. RESULTS: Five studies matched the selection criteria, and reported on 176 patients who underwent rectal washout and 256 who did not undergo washout. Different washout solutions were used in every study, and total mesorectal excision was not universally applied. Overall local recurrence rate was 8 percent (33/432). Local recurrence rate for rectal washout patients was 4.8 percent compared with 10.2 percent for patients who did not undergo rectal washout, a difference that was not statistically significant (odds ratio = 0.64; 95 percent confidence interval = 0.2-2.04). When only studies using total mesorectal excision were considered, there was no significant difference between the two groups (odds ratio = 1.21; 95 percent confidence interval = 0.37-3.92). CONCLUSIONS: Although no definitive conclusions may be drawn because of the nonrandomized nature of the included studies, rectal washout is relatively risk-free and adds little to the operative time. This may be performed until a randomized, controlled trial is undertaken to resolve this contentious issue.