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).

Aim The aim of this study was to evaluate a discharge strategy driven by monitoring of C‐reactive protein (CRP) in a homogeneous group of patients undergoing laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with sphincter‐saving surgery for rectal cancer (TME). Method One hundred and thirteen patients who underwent a TME had CRP monitoring on postoperative day (POD) 5. Patients were discharged on POD 6 if the CRP level was ≤100 mg/L. Patients were matched (according to age, gender, body mass index, neoadjuvant pelvic irradiation and type of anastomosis) to 123 control patients who underwent the same operation with the same postoperative care but without CRP monitoring. Results Postoperative 3‐month overall [CRP group 62/113 (55%) vs controls 73/123 (59%); p = 0.487] and severe (i.e. Clavien–Dindo grade 3 and above) [CRP group 17/113 (15%) vs controls 19/123 (15%); p = 0.931] morbidity rates were similar between groups. Mean length of hospital stay (LHS) was significantly shorter in the CRP group (CRP group 9.7 ± 14 days vs controls 11.6 ± 7 days; p < 0.001). Discharge occurred on POD 6 in 55/113 (49%) patients from the CRP group vs 7/123 (6%) from the control group (p < 0.001). The rehospitalization rate [CRP group 19/113 (17%) vs controls 13/123 (11%); p = 0.177] was similar between groups. The CRP level on POD 5 had a diagnostic property to assess an anastomotic leakage with an area under the curve of 0.81. Conclusion In patients who underwent TME, a discharge strategy based on CRP monitoring significantly decreased LHS without increasing morbidity, mortality or rehospitalization rates.