Impact of Prostate Cancer and Its Treatment on the Outcomes of Ileal Pouch-Anal Anastomosis.
Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2017 Dec;23(12):2147-2153
Authors: Lian L, Ashburn J, Remer EM, Remzi FH, Monga M, Shen B
BACKGROUND: There are scant published data in the impact of prostate cancer and its treatment on functional outcomes and quality of life (QOL) in patients with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA). The aim of the study was to evaluate the influence of prostate cancer and its treatment on functional outcomes and QOL in patients with IPAA.
METHODS: Patients with IPAA with prostate cancer were compared to age and pouch duration-matched controls without prostate cancer in a 1:2 ratio. Pouch function and QOL were compared between pretreatment and posttreatment for prostate cancer as well as between subjects and controls.
RESULTS: A total of 30 patients with IPAA with prostate cancer and 60 matched controls were included. Treatment modalities of prostate cancer included prostatectomy (n = 22), brachytherapy (n = 5), watchful waiting (n = 2), and hormonal therapy (n = 1). The median length of follow-up was 6 (interquartile range, 2.7-8) years. Permanent fecal diversion was required in 5 (16.7%) patients with prostate cancer who developed pouch failure, as compared with 2 patients in the control group (P = 0.04). In patients who retained their pouches, the pouch functional outcomes at the latest follow-up were similar to that before prostate cancer treatment and to that of the matched controls, in terms of bowel movements, daytime seepage, nighttime bowel movements, nighttime seepage, and QOL score.
CONCLUSIONS: The risk of pouch failure may be increased after the diagnosis of prostate cancer with or without treatment. However, for those with retained pouches, their pouch function and QOL did not seem to be adversely affected.
PMID: 29135694 [PubMed - in process]
European Hernia Society guidelines on prevention and treatment of parastomal hernias.
Hernia. 2017 Nov 13;:
Authors: Antoniou SA, Agresta F, Garcia Alamino JM, Berger D, Berrevoet F, Brandsma HT, Bury K, Conze J, Cuccurullo D, Dietz UA, Fortelny RH, Frei-Lanter C, Hansson B, Helgstrand F, Hotouras A, Jänes A, Kroese LF, Lambrecht JR, Kyle-Leinhase I, López-Cano M, Maggiori L, Mandalà V, Miserez M, Montgomery A, Morales-Conde S, Prudhomme M, Rautio T, Smart N, Śmietański M, Szczepkowski M, Stabilini C, Muysoms FE
BACKGROUND: International guidelines on the prevention and treatment of parastomal hernias are lacking. The European Hernia Society therefore implemented a Clinical Practice Guideline development project.
METHODS: The guidelines development group consisted of general, hernia and colorectal surgeons, a biostatistician and a biologist, from 14 European countries. These guidelines conformed to the AGREE II standards and the GRADE methodology. The databases of MEDLINE, CINAHL, CENTRAL and the gray literature through OpenGrey were searched. Quality assessment was performed using Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network checklists. The guidelines were presented at the 38th European Hernia Society Congress and each key question was evaluated in a consensus voting of congress participants.
RESULTS: End colostomy is associated with a higher incidence of parastomal hernia, compared to other types of stomas. Clinical examination is necessary for the diagnosis of parastomal hernia, whereas computed tomography scan or ultrasonography may be performed in cases of diagnostic uncertainty. Currently available classifications are not validated; however, we suggest the use of the European Hernia Society classification for uniform research reporting. There is insufficient evidence on the policy of watchful waiting, the route and location of stoma construction, and the size of the aperture. The use of a prophylactic synthetic non-absorbable mesh upon construction of an end colostomy is strongly recommended. No such recommendation can be made for other types of stomas at present. It is strongly recommended to avoid performing a suture repair for elective parastomal hernia. So far, there is no sufficient comparative evidence on specific techniques, open or laparoscopic surgery and specific mesh types. However, a mesh without a hole is suggested in preference to a keyhole mesh when laparoscopic repair is performed.
CONCLUSION: An evidence-based approach to the diagnosis and management of parastomal hernias reveals the lack of evidence on several topics, which need to be addressed by multicenter trials. Parastomal hernia prevention using a prophylactic mesh for end colostomies reduces parastomal herniation. Clinical outcomes should be audited and adverse events must be reported.
PMID: 29134456 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]