Aim After total mesorectal excision (TME) for low rectal cancer, current guideline recommendations for sphincter‐saving surgery are to perform a side‐to‐end manual coloanal anastomosis (CAA) (or with J‐pouch) with a temporary stoma. Our study aimed to evaluate if delayed pull‐through coloanal anastomosis (DCAA) without a temporary stoma could represent a safe alternative in low rectal cancer. Method From 2003 to 2020, 223 consecutive patients with low rectal cancer undergoing TME were compared: CAA and diverting stoma (n = 190) versus DCAA without stoma (n = 33). Results Overall 3‐month and severe (Dindo ≥ IIIb) morbidity rates were similar in CAA versus DCAA groups: 34% (65/190) vs. 36% (12/33) and 2.6% (5/190) vs. 3% (1/33), respectively. In the DCAA group, only one patient (3%) underwent reoperation (Hartmann's procedure) at day 3 due to colon necrosis. The anastomotic leakage rate (both clinical and radiological) was significantly higher after CAA than DCAA: 28% (53/190) vs. 3% (1/33; p = 0.00138). Failure of the procedure (with return to stoma) was observed in 8% (15/190) vs. 6% (2/33) of patients after CAA and DCAA respectively (not significant). Conclusion Our comparative study suggested that in patients with low rectal cancer, DCAA without a temporary stoma could represent an interesting alternative to the actual recommended CAA with a temporary ileostomy. DCAA could offer two major advantages over CAA: a significantly lower rate of anastomotic leakage and absence of a temporary stoma and its potential complications (rehospitalization, dehydration, wound hernia after stoma closure).

No abstract

Aim Management of rectovaginal fistula (RVF) remains a challenge, especially in cases of postoperative RVF as they are often large and surrounded by inflammatory and fibrotic tissue, making local repair difficult or even impossible. In this situation, colonic pull‐through delayed coloanal anastomosis (DCAA) could be an interesting option. The aim of this study was to assess the results of DCAA for RVF observed after rectal surgery. Methods All patients who underwent DCAA for RVF were reviewed. Success was defined as a patient without stoma and without any symptoms of recurrent RVF at the end of follow‐up. Results From January 2010 to December 2020, 28 DCAA were performed for RVF after rectal surgery for rectal cancer (n = 21) or endometriosis (n = 7). Ten patients (36%) had at least one previous local procedure before DCAA. DCAA was associated with temporary ileostomy in 22/28 cases (79%). After a mean follow‐up of 23 ± 23 (2–82) months, the success rate was 86% (24/28): three patients (11%) required a definitive stoma because of poor functional results (n = 1), chronic pelvic sepsis with anastomotic leakage (n = 1) or stoma reversal refused (n = 1). Another patient (3%) presented with recurrence of RVF, 26 months after DCAA. Although not significant, the success rate was higher in cases of DCAA with diverting stoma (20/22, 91%) than without (4/6, 67%) (p = 0.191). Conclusion In cases of postoperative RVF, DCAA is a safe option which can avoid definitive stoma in the great majority of the patients. Concomitant use of a temporary stoma appears to slightly increase the success rate.