Fecal incontinence (FI) is recurrent uncontrolled passage of fecal material in patients. The life expectancy of humans has increased. Elderly patients have a significant rate of FI. Therefore, the number of patients with FI will increase. For diagnosis of FI, the digital rectal exam, ultrasonography, and anal manometry are used. In addition, the severity of FI can be assessed using the FI score system by examining symptoms. Recent applications include three-dimensional ultrasonography and other novel approaches. The treatments for FI include biofeedback therapy, anal implant, artificial sphincter, nerve modulation, SECCA, stem cell therapy, and surgical intervention. Biofeedback therapy is a noninvasive procedure. Anal implant, stem cell therapy, and SECCA are all minimally invasive treatments. And more methods constitute intrusive treatment. None of these therapies has been conclusively demonstrated to be superior. Depending on the severity of the symptoms, a non-invasive approach or an intrusive treatment is most frequently employed. In this review, I will discuss the diagnosis and treatment options for FI.

Purpose: This study aims to oncologic outcomes of the watch-and-wait (WW) strategy compared with radical resection (RR). Methods: Patients with rectal cancer who received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) and achieved ≤ycT2 between 2008 and 2016 were included. The mean follow-up time was 61 months (range, 0–168 months). Recurrence-free survival (RFS), local recurrence-free survival (LRFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and overall survival (OS) were compared. A total of 446 patients were included, and WW was adopted for 34 patients. Results: WW patients were older (P = 0.022) and less advanced initial cT stage (P = 0.004). Ten patients in the WW group (29.4%) experienced local regrowth. Later, distant metastases occurred in 7 of these patients. The 5-year RFS (74.1% vs. 79.5%), DMFS (74.1% vs. 81.6%), and OS (90.4% vs. 87.7%) for the WW and RR groups were not statistically different.However, LRFS in the WW group was significantly lower (65.1% vs. 97.0%, P < 0.001). The initial cT stage was associated with RFS (P = 0.019) and LRFS (P = 0.037). WW was an independent risk factor for LRFS (P < 0.001) and DMFS (P = 0.024).After 1:4 propensity score matching between the WW and RR groups, there was no difference in RFS and OS. However, the 5-year LRFS (67.5% vs. 96.5%) and DMFS (73.2% vs. 86.4%) demonstrated a statistically significant difference between the groups. Conclusion By appointing the WW strategy, oncologic safety was not ensured. The WW strategy must be implemented with caution in patients with ≤ycT2 stage, particularly those with advanced initial cT stage.

Anatomical and physiological differences exist between sex, leading to variations in how diseases, such as rectal cancer, are prevalence and treatment outcomes of diseases including rectal cancer. In particular, in the case of rectal cancer, anatomical differences may be associated with surgical challenges, and these factors are believed to be important contributors to potential disparities in postoperative recovery, associated complications, and oncological outcomes between male and female patients. However, there is still ongoing debate regarding this matter. Significantly, the male pelvic anatomy is distinguished by its narrower dimensions, which can present surgical challenges and impede visual access during operative procedures, rendering it more complex than surgical interventions in the female pelvis. As a result, this anatomical difference leads to a greater occurrence of postoperative complications, such as anastomotic leakage. Moreover, the pelvis houses nerves that are vital for urinary and genital functions, underscoring the need to assess the potential risks of sexual and urinary dysfunction in rectal cancer surgery. These postoperative complications can significantly impact the quality of life; therefore, it is imperative to perform surgery with an understanding of the structural differences between sexes. Therefore, to address the limitations imposed by anatomical structures, new approaches such as robotic surgery, trans-anal total mesorectal excision, and intraoperative neuromonitoring are being introduced. Furthermore, it is essential to conduct research into fundamental mechanisms that may give rise to differences in surgical outcomes and oncological results between sexes. By comprehending the disparities between males and females, we can advance toward personalized treatments. Consequently, this review outlines variations in surgical approaches, complications, and treatments for rectal cancer in male and female patients.