Emile, Sameh Hany

AbstractBackgroundInflammatory bowel disease (IBD) affects more than 10 million people worldwide. Men and women are equally affected by Crohn's disease (CD). It has been shown that patients with CD are at an increased risk of a colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosis and CRC‐related mortality. During the last two decades, biological therapies have revolutionized the treatment of CD. There are no current studies investigating the prevalence of CRC in patients with CD in the era of biological therapy and the possible features of patients with CD who are at high risk of developing CRC.AimWe aim to assess the prevalence of CRC, risk factors and profile of CRC in patients with CD receiving biological treatment compared with those who are not under biological therapy and the impact of CD‐associated colorectal strictures on CRC development. The study hypothesis is that the use of biological therapy in the control of CD activity may decrease the risk of developing CRC.Study design and settingAn international, retrospective, snapshot of the prevalence of CRC in patients with CD, reported according to the SPIRIT guidelines. The study will involve centres that hold regular IBD multidisciplinary team meetings and have both IBD colorectal surgeons and gastroenterologists. Each participating centre will provide a local consultant lead and a local trainee lead. Data will be collected within a 2‐year recruitment period (January 2017–January 2019).Study populationAdult patients who presented with CD during the study period. Patients with an incidental diagnosis of CD during evaluation for CRC will be excluded.Statistical planBaseline patient characteristics will be summarized using the appropriate descriptive statistics. Univariable, multivariable and Cox regression models will be used to identify factors significantly associated with CRC. For noncontinuous variables a comparison between the subgroups will be carried out using the chi‐square test corrected by Fisher's exact test if appropriate. A p‐value of <0.05 will be considered statistically significant.Data storageData will be stored on a secured server, pin‐code protected according to the local data management agreement.

Abstract Background Although the clinical importance of complete, intact total mesorectal excision (TME) is the widely accepted standard for decreasing local recurrence of rectal cancer, the residual mesorectum still represents a significant component of resection margin involvement. This study aimed to use a visible intraoperative sign to detect the distal mesorectal end to ensure complete inclusion of the mesorectum and avoid unnecessary over-dissection. Methods The distal mesorectum end was investigated retrospectively through a review of 124 operative videos at the Union Hospital of Fujian Medical University (Fujian, China) and Cleveland Clinic (Ohio, USA) by two independent surgeons who were blinded to each other. Furthermore, 28 cadavers and 44 post-operative specimens were prospectively examined by hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining and Masson's staining to validate and confirm the findings of the retrospective part. Univariate and multivariate analyses were carried out to detect the independent factors that can affect the visualization of the distal mesorectal end. Results The terminal line (TL) is the distal mesorectal end of the transabdominal and transanal TME (taTME) and appears as a remarkable pearly white fascial structure extending posteriorly from 2 to 10 o'clock. Histopathological examination revealed that the fascia propria of the rectum merges with the presacral fascia at the TL, beyond which the mesorectum ends, with no further downward extension. In the retrospective observation, the TL was seen in 56.6% of transabdominal TME and 56.0% of taTME operations. Surgical approach and tumor distance from the anal verge were the independent variables that directly influenced the detection of the TL (P = 0.03 and P = 0.01). Conclusion The TL is a visible sign where the transabdominal TME should end and the taTME should begin. Recognition of the mesorectal end may impact the certainty of complete mesorectum inclusion. Further clinical trials are needed to confirm the preliminary findings.

AbstractAimAnismus is a common cause of obstructed defaecation syndrome (ODS). The aim of the present review is to assess the efficacy and safety of puborectalis muscle (PRM) division in the treatment of anismus.MethodPubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies that assessed the outcome of PRM division in the treatment of anismus. The main outcome measures were subjective improvement in ODS, decrease in the Wexner constipation score and ODS score, and complications, namely faecal incontinence (FI).ResultsTen studies (204 patients, 63.7% male) were included. The weighted mean rate of initial subjective improvement across randomized trials was 97.6% (95% CI 94%–100%) and across nonrandomized studies it was 63.1 (95% CI 39.3%–87%). The weighted mean rate of 12‐month improvement across randomized trials was 64.9% (95% CI 53.3%–76.4%) and across nonrandomized studies it was 55.9% (95% CI 30.8%–81%). The weighted mean rate of FI across randomized trials was 12.1% (95% CI 4.2%–20%) and across nonrandomized studies it was 10.4% (95% CI 1.6%–19.3%). Male sex and unilateral PRM division were significantly associated with recurrence of symptoms after PRM division. Bilateral PRM division, posterior division, complete division and concomitant sphincterotomy were significantly associated with FI after PRM division.ConclusionsThe use of PRM division for treatment of anismus was followed by some initial improvement in ODS symptoms which decreased to <60% 12 months after PRM division. The mean rate of FI after PRM division, namely 10%–12%, is a limitation of the technique. Further well‐designed trials are needed to verify the outcome of PRM division in the treatment of anismus.