Zaid Al-Difaie1,2, Nariaki Okamoto3,4, Max H M C Scheepers1,2, Didier Mutter5,6, Laurents P S Stassen2, Nicole D Bouvy2, Jacques Marescaux5, Bernard Dallemagne5, Michele Diana5,6,7, Mahdi Al-Taher5,2. 1. GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 3. IRCAD, Research Institute Against Digestive Cancer, 1 place de l'hôpital, 67091, Strasbourg, France. nariaki.okamoto@ircad.fr. 4. ICube Laboratory, Photonics Instrumentation for Health, Strasbourg, France. nariaki.okamoto@ircad.fr. 5. IRCAD, Research Institute Against Digestive Cancer, 1 place de l'hôpital, 67091, Strasbourg, France. 6. Department of Digestive and Endocrine Surgery, University Hospital of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France. 7. ICube Laboratory, Photonics Instrumentation for Health, Strasbourg, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several pivotal studies and international guidelines on the perioperative management of rectal cancer have been published. However, little is known about the current state of perioperative management of rectal cancer patients in clinical practice worldwide. METHODS: An online survey including 13 questions focusing on key topics related to the perioperative management of patients with rectal cancer was conducted among colorectal surgeons registered within the database of the Research Institute Against Digestive Cancer (IRCAD). RESULTS: A total of 535 respondents from 89 countries participated in the survey. Most surgeons worked in the European region (40.9%). Two hundred and fifty-four respondents (47.5%) performed less than 25% of surgical procedures laparoscopically. The most commonly used definition of the upper limit of the rectum was a fixed distance from the anal verge (23.4%). Magnetic resonance imaging was used to define the upper limit of the rectum by 258 respondents (48.2%). During total mesorectal excision (TME), 301 respondents (56.3%) used a high-tie technique. The most commonly constructed anastomosis was an end-to-end anastomosis (68.2%) with the majority of surgeons performing a leak test intraoperatively (88.9%). A total of 355 respondents (66.4%) constructed a diverting ostomy, and the majority of these surgeons constructed an enterostomy (82%). A total of 208 respondents (39.3%) closed a stoma within 8 weeks. Lastly, 135 respondents (25.2%) introduced a solid diet on postoperative day 1. CONCLUSION: There is considerable heterogeneity in the perioperative management of rectal cancer patients worldwide with several discrepancies between current international practice and recommendations from international guidelines. To achieve worldwide standardization in rectal cancer care, further research is needed to elucidate the cause of this heterogeneity and find ways of improved implementation of best practice recommendations.
BACKGROUND: Several pivotal studies and international guidelines on the perioperative management of rectal cancer have been published. However, little is known about the current state of perioperative management of rectal cancer patients in clinical practice worldwide. METHODS: An online survey including 13 questions focusing on key topics related to the perioperative management of patients with rectal cancer was conducted among colorectal surgeons registered within the database of the Research Institute Against Digestive Cancer (IRCAD). RESULTS: A total of 535 respondents from 89 countries participated in the survey. Most surgeons worked in the European region (40.9%). Two hundred and fifty-four respondents (47.5%) performed less than 25% of surgical procedures laparoscopically. The most commonly used definition of the upper limit of the rectum was a fixed distance from the anal verge (23.4%). Magnetic resonance imaging was used to define the upper limit of the rectum by 258 respondents (48.2%). During total mesorectal excision (TME), 301 respondents (56.3%) used a high-tie technique. The most commonly constructed anastomosis was an end-to-end anastomosis (68.2%) with the majority of surgeons performing a leak test intraoperatively (88.9%). A total of 355 respondents (66.4%) constructed a diverting ostomy, and the majority of these surgeons constructed an enterostomy (82%). A total of 208 respondents (39.3%) closed a stoma within 8 weeks. Lastly, 135 respondents (25.2%) introduced a solid diet on postoperative day 1. CONCLUSION: There is considerable heterogeneity in the perioperative management of rectal cancer patients worldwide with several discrepancies between current international practice and recommendations from international guidelines. To achieve worldwide standardization in rectal cancer care, further research is needed to elucidate the cause of this heterogeneity and find ways of improved implementation of best practice recommendations.
Authors: E Kapiteijn; C A Marijnen; I D Nagtegaal; H Putter; W H Steup; T Wiggers; H J Rutten; L Pahlman; B Glimelius; J H van Krieken; J W Leer; C J van de Velde Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2001-08-30 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Nigel DʼSouza; Michael P M de Neree Tot Babberich; Andre d'Hoore; Emmanuel Tiret; Evaghelos Xynos; Regina G H Beets-Tan; Iris D Nagtegaal; Lennart Blomqvist; Torbjorn Holm; Bengt Glimelius; Antonio Lacy; Andres Cervantes; Robert Glynne-Jones; Nicholas P West; Rodrigo O Perez; Claudio Quadros; Kil Yeon Lee; Thandinkosi E Madiba; Steven D Wexner; Julio Garcia-Aguilar; Dushyant Sahani; Brendan Moran; Paris Tekkis; Harm J Rutten; Pieter J Tanis; Theo Wiggers; Gina Brown Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Al B Benson; Alan P Venook; Mahmoud M Al-Hawary; Mustafa A Arain; Yi-Jen Chen; Kristen K Ciombor; Stacey Cohen; Harry S Cooper; Dustin Deming; Ignacio Garrido-Laguna; Jean L Grem; Andrew Gunn; Sarah Hoffe; Joleen Hubbard; Steven Hunt; Natalie Kirilcuk; Smitha Krishnamurthi; Wells A Messersmith; Jeffrey Meyerhardt; Eric D Miller; Mary F Mulcahy; Steven Nurkin; Michael J Overman; Aparna Parikh; Hitendra Patel; Katrina Pedersen; Leonard Saltz; Charles Schneider; David Shibata; John M Skibber; Constantinos T Sofocleous; Elena M Stoffel; Eden Stotsky-Himelfarb; Christopher G Willett; Alyse Johnson-Chilla; Lisa A Gurski Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2020-07 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Wido Heeman; Aurelia C L Wildeboer; Mahdi Al-Taher; Joost E M Calon; Laurents P S Stassen; Michele Diana; Joep P M Derikx; Gooitzen M van Dam; E Christiaan Boerma; Nicole D Bouvy Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2022-09-06 Impact factor: 3.453
Authors: James Fleshman; Megan Branda; Daniel J Sargent; Anne Marie Boller; Virgilio George; Maher Abbas; Walter R Peters; Dipen Maun; George Chang; Alan Herline; Alessandro Fichera; Matthew Mutch; Steven Wexner; Mark Whiteford; John Marks; Elisa Birnbaum; David Margolin; David Larson; Peter Marcello; Mitchell Posner; Thomas Read; John Monson; Sherry M Wren; Peter W T Pisters; Heidi Nelson Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-10-06 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Andrew R L Stevenson; Michael J Solomon; John W Lumley; Peter Hewett; Andrew D Clouston; Val J Gebski; Lucy Davies; Kate Wilson; Wendy Hague; John Simes Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-10-06 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Freddie Bray; Jacques Ferlay; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Rebecca L Siegel; Lindsey A Torre; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2018-09-12 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Y Nancy You; Karin M Hardiman; Andrea Bafford; Vitaliy Poylin; Todd D Francone; Kurt Davis; Ian M Paquette; Scott R Steele; Daniel L Feingold Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2020-09 Impact factor: 4.412