Stoma prolapse can usually be managed conservatively by stoma care nurses. However, surgical management is considered when complications make traditional care difficult and/or stoma prolapse affects normal bowel function and induces incarceration. If the stoma functions as a fecal diversion, the prolapse is resolved by stoma reversal. Loop stoma prolapse reportedly occurs when increased intraabdominal pressure induces stoma prolapse by pushing the stoma up between the abdominal wall and the intestine, particularly in cases of redundant or mobile colon. Therefore, stoma prolapse repair aims to prevent or eliminate the space between the abdominal wall and the intestine, as well as the redundant or mobile intestine. Accordingly, surgical repair methods for stoma prolapse are classified into 3 types: methods to fix the intestine, methods to shorten the intestine, and methods to eliminate the space between the stoma and the abdominal wall around the stoma orifice. Additionally, the following surgical techniques at the time of stoma creation are reported to be effective in preventing stoma prolapse: an avoidance of excessive fascia incision, fixation of the stoma to the abdominal wall, an appropriate selection of the intestinal site for the stoma orifice to minimize the redundant intestine, and the use of an extraperitoneal route for stoma creation.

Purpose: Current acceptance of the watch-and-wait (W&W) approach by surgeons in Asia-Pacific countries is unknown. An international survey was performed to determine status of the W&W approach on behalf of the Asia-Pacific Federation of Coloproctology (APFCP). Methods: Surgeons in the APFCP completed an Institutional Review Board-approved anonymous e-survey and/or printed letters (for China) containing 19 questions regarding nonsurgical close observation in patients who achieved clinical complete response (cCR) to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT). Results: Of the 417 responses, 80.8% (n = 337) supported the W&W approach and 65.5% (n = 273) treated patients who achieved cCR after nCRT. Importantly, 78% of participants (n = 326) preferred a selective W&W approach in patients with old age and medical comorbidities who achieved cCR. In regard to restaging methods after nCRT, the majority of respondents based their decision to use W&W on a combination of magnetic resonance imaging results (94.5%, n = 394) with other test results. For interval between nCRT completion and tumor response assessment, most participants used 8 weeks (n = 154, 36.9%), followed by 6 weeks (n = 127, 30.5%) and 4 weeks (n = 102, 24.5%). In response to the question of how often responders followed-up after W&W, the predominant period was every 3 months (209 participants, 50.1%) followed by every 2 months (75 participants, 18.0%). If local regrowth was found during follow-up, most participants (79.9%, n = 333) recommended radical surgery as an initial management. Conclusion The W&W approach is supported by 80% of Asia-Pacific surgeons and is practiced at 65%, although heterogeneous hospital or society protocols are also observed. These results inform oncologists of future clinical study participation.