Despite innovative advancements, the management of distally located rectal cancer (RC) remains a formidable endeavor. The critical location of the tumor predisposes it to a circumferential resection margin that tends to involve the sphincters and surrounding organs, pelvic lymph node metastasis, and anastomotic complications. In this regard, colorectal surgeons should be aware of issues beyond the performance of total mesorectal excision (TME). For decades, abdominoperineal resection had been the standard of care for low-lying RC; however, its association with high rates of tumor recurrence, tumor perforation, and poorer survival has stimulated the development of novel surgical techniques and modifications, such as extralevator abdominoperineal excision. Similarly, difficult dissections and poor visualization, especially in obese patients with low-lying tumors, have led to the development of transanal TME or the “bottom-to-up” approach. Additionally, while neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy has allowed for the execution of more sphincter-saving procedures without oncologic compromise, functional outcomes remain an issue. Nevertheless, neoadjuvant treatment can lead to significant tumor regression and complete pathological response, permitting the utilization of organ-preserving strategies. At present, an East and West dualism pervades the management of lateral lymph node metastasis, thereby calling for a more global and united approach. Moreover, with the increasing importance of quality of life, a tailored, individualized treatment approach is of utmost importance when taking into account oncologic and anticipated functional outcomes.
Chemoradiotherapy ; Humans ; Lymph Nodes ; Neoadjuvant Therapy ; Neoplasm Metastasis ; Quality of Life ; Rectal Neoplasms* ; Recurrence ; Standard of Care ; Surgeons

PURPOSE: Despite the plethora of surgical options, there is no consensus regarding the best treatment for rectal prolapse. This study is aimed at evaluating our experience with its treatment and outcomes.METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed rectal prolapse patients' characteristics, clinical presentation, surgical procedure, average length of hospital stay, morbidity, mortality, and recurrence over a 10 year period at our institution.RESULTS: A total of 46 patients underwent rectal prolapse repair at our institution over a 10 year period. Of the 39 patients with primary rectal prolapse, 18 patients had an abdominal procedure, while 21 patients underwent a perineal approach. Operative duration was significantly longer in abdominal procedures, of which 16 cases were performed laparoscopically. Length of hospital stay and recurrence were not statistically significant between the 2 groups. In patients with recurrent rectal prolapse, more than 80% of the initial surgeries were done using the perineal approach. An abdominal approach was utilized in the management of 75% of recurrences.CONCLUSION: An abdominal repair may be preferable in the treatment of recurrent rectal prolapse. Minimally invasive techniques may be feasible and can provide a safe alternative to perineal procedures in elderly patients.
Aged ; Consensus ; Humans ; Length of Stay ; Mortality ; Prolapse ; Rectal Diseases ; Rectal Prolapse ; Rectum ; Recurrence ; Retrospective Studies