Sagar, P. M.

Consensus abstract Background The management of primary rectal cancer beyond total mesorectal excision planes (PRC-bTME) and recurrent rectal cancer (RRC) is challenging. There is global variation in standards and no guidelines exist. To achieve cure most patients require extended, multivisceral, exenterative surgery, beyond conventional total mesorectal excision planes. The aim of the Beyond TME Group was to achieve consensus on the definitions and principles of management, and to identify areas of research priority. Methods Delphi methodology was used to achieve consensus. The Group consisted of invited experts from surgery, radiology, oncology and pathology. The process included two international dedicated discussion conferences, formal feedback, three rounds of editing and two rounds of anonymized web-based voting. Consensus was achieved with more than 80 per cent agreement; less than 80 per cent agreement indicated low consensus. During conferences held in September 2011 and March 2012, open discussion took place on areas in which there is a low level of consensus. Results The final consensus document included 51 voted statements, making recommendations on ten key areas of PRC-bTME and RRC. Consensus agreement was achieved on the recommendations of 49 statements, with 34 achieving consensus in over 95 per cent. The lowest level of consensus obtained was 76 per cent. There was clear identification of the need for referral to a specialist multidisciplinary team for diagnosis, assessment and further management. Conclusion The consensus process has provided guidance for the management of patients with PRC-bTME or RRC, taking into account global variations in surgical techniques and technology. It has further identified areas of research priority.

Consensus abstract Background The management of primary rectal cancer beyond total mesorectal excision planes (PRC-bTME) and recurrent rectal cancer (RRC) is challenging. There is global variation in standards and no guidelines exist. To achieve cure most patients require extended, multivisceral, exenterative surgery, beyond conventional total mesorectal excision planes. The aim of the Beyond TME Group was to achieve consensus on the definitions and principles of management, and to identify areas of research priority. Methods Delphi methodology was used to achieve consensus. The Group consisted of invited experts from surgery, radiology, oncology and pathology. The process included two international dedicated discussion conferences, formal feedback, three rounds of editing and two rounds of anonymized web-based voting. Consensus was achieved with more than 80 per cent agreement; less than 80 per cent agreement indicated low consensus. During conferences held in September 2011 and March 2012, open discussion took place on areas in which there is a low level of consensus. Results The final consensus document included 51 voted statements, making recommendations on ten key areas of PRC-bTME and RRC. Consensus agreement was achieved on the recommendations of 49 statements, with 34 achieving consensus in over 95 per cent. The lowest level of consensus obtained was 76 per cent. There was clear identification of the need for referral to a specialist multidisciplinary team for diagnosis, assessment and further management. Conclusion The consensus process has provided guidance for the management of patients with PRC-bTME or RRC, taking into account global variations in surgical techniques and technology. It has further identified areas of research priority.

Abstract Background Proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) has been developed and refined since its introduction in the late 1970s. Nonetheless, it is a procedure associated with significant morbidity. The aim of this review was to provide a structured approach to the challenges that surgeons and physicians encounter in the management of intraoperative, postoperative and reoperative problems associated with ileoanal pouches. Methods The review was based on relevant studies identified from an electronic search of MEDLINE, Embase and PubMed databases from 1975 to April 2011. There were no language or publication year restrictions. Original references in published articles were reviewed. Results Although the majority of patients experience long-term success with an ileoanal pouch, significant morbidity surrounds IPAA. Surgical intervention is often critical to achieve optimal control of the situation. Conclusion A structured management plan will minimize the adverse consequences of the problems associated with pouches.

Abstract The surgical management of locally recurrent rectal cancer may involve major procedures and is not for the faint-hearted. Nevertheless, such treatment is preferable to chemotherapy and radiotherapy; the latter will fail over a period of months during which the patient is likely to experience intractable pain. Radical surgery offers good palliation and a better quality of life. Survival is prolonged by such operations which may be curative in up to one-third of patients. Nevertheless, surgeons must be realistic in their assessment of and discussions with patients.

AbstractThe aim of this retrospective study was to determine the outcome of patients with a dysfunctional pelvic ileal reservoir in whom disconnection of an ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA), pouch revision and reanastomosis had been carried out. There were 23 patients (15 women). At the revision operation functional problems were found to be due to a long efferent spout (nine patients), sepsis and/or fistula (four), a redundant blind limb (three), a twisted pouch (three), anastomotic problems (three) or no reservoir (one). The pouch was salvaged in 16 patients and a new pouch was constructed in seven. The pouch-anal anastomosis was resutured in 22 patients and stapled in one. Postoperative complications (all minor) occurred in six patients. Two patients underwent two revisions of IPAA. At a median follow-up of 5 (range 1–10) years, 11 patients reported good to excellent function, five reported fair function and one reported recurrent pouchitis. Revision surgery was unsuccessful in six of 23 patients (three had gross incontinence, two excessive bowel movements and one Crohn's disease), and they subsequently underwent pouch excision. It is concluded that revision of an ileal reservoir and IPAA can be undertaken safely with good results in carefully selected patients.