Annals of Coloproctology

Display

Sort by :

Reviews

Colorectal cancer

Safety and efficacy of chemoprevention for familial adenomatous polyposis: a systematic review and meta-analysis: Francisco Tustumi, Amanda Park, Eric Toshiyuki Nakamura, Thaís Cabral de Melo Viana, Elis Nogara Lisboa, Rodrigo Moisés de Almeida Leite, Sergio Eduardo Alonso Araujo, Pedro Luiz Serrano Usón Jr, Kaique Flávio Xavier Cardoso Filardi; Ann Coloproctol. 2026;42(1):34-46. Published online February 25, 2026; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2025.01018.0145

990 View
41 Download

Abstract PDF Supplementary Material: Purpose
Familial adenomatous polyposis is a hereditary condition that predisposes individuals to colorectal cancer. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pharmacological therapies for reducing polyp number, burden, and size in individuals with familial adenomatous polyposis.
Methods
A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane. Randomized trials assessing the effects of pharmacological interventions on polyp number, polyp burden, and polyp size were included, and adverse events were also analyzed.
Results
Sixteen studies (n=985) met the inclusion criteria. The mean participant age was 38±8.3 years, with a mean follow-up of 14.6±15.8 months. Of these studies, 62.5% focused on colorectal polyps, 18.8% on rectal polyps, 18.8% on duodenal polyps, and 12.5% addressed both colorectal and duodenal polyps. Pharmacological interventions were associated with a modest but statistically significant reduction in the number of polyps (Hedges g, −0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], −1.08 to −0.05) and in average polyp size (Hedges g, −0.26; 95% CI, −0.49 to −0.04). However, no significant reduction in overall polyp burden was observed (Hedges g, −1.07; 95% CI, −2.21 to 0.06). In subgroup analyses, nonselective cyclooxygenase inhibitors produced a large reduction in polyp burden (Hedges g, −2.72; 95% CI, −3.28 to −2.16), while metformin also demonstrated benefit in a single study (Hedges g, −1.06; 95% CI, −1.86 to −0.27). Adverse events were generally infrequent and comparable to placebo. Conclusion: Chemopreventive interventions may reduce polyp number, burden, and size, and they appear to have a favorable safety profile.

Colorectal cancer

Outcomes of redo for failed colorectal or coloanal anastomoses: a systematic review and meta-analysis: Ricardo Purchio Galletti, Gabriel Andrade Agareno, Lucas de Abreu Sesconetto, Rafael Benjamim Rosa da Silva, Rafael Vaz Pandini, Lucas Soares Gerbasi, Victor Edmond Seid, Sérgio Eduardo Alonso Araujo, Francisco Tustumi; Ann Coloproctol. 2023;39(5):375-384. Published online December 20, 2022; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2022.00605.0086

6,766 View
158 Download
2 Web of Science
2 Citations

Abstract PDF Supplementary Material

Purpose
This study aimed to review the outcomes of redo procedures for failed colorectal or coloanal anastomoses.
Methods
A systematic review was performed using the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and LILACS databases. The inclusion criteria were adult patients undergoing colectomy with primary colorectal or coloanal anastomosis and studies that assessed the postoperative results. The protocol is registered in PROSPERO (No. CRD42021267715).
Results
Eleven articles met the eligibility criteria and were selected. The studied population size ranged from 7 to 78 patients. The overall mortality rate was 0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0%–0.01%). The postoperative complication rate was 40% (95% CI, 40%–50%). The length of hospital stay was 13.68 days (95% CI, 11.3–16.06 days). After redo surgery, 82% of the patients were free of stoma (95% CI, 75%–90%), and 24% of patients (95% CI, 0%–39%) had fecal incontinence. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (P=0.002) was associated with a lower probability of being free of stoma in meta-regression.
Conclusion
Redo colorectal and coloanal anastomoses are strategies to restore colonic continuity. The decision to perform a redo operation should be based on a proper evaluation of the morbidity and mortality risks, the probability of remaining free of stoma, the quality of life, and a functional assessment.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Abdominoperineal pull-through with delayed coloanal anastomosis for pelvic anastomotic failure—a systematic review
T. J. K. Tan, S.-M. Ng, T. S. Q. Lee, E. K.-W. Tan, I. Seow-En
Techniques in Coloproctology.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Laparoscopic redo endorectal pull‐through procedure for complex rectovaginal fistula after rectal resection for endometriosis: A Video Vignette
Sergio Eduardo Alonso Araujo, Francisco Tustumi, Ana Sarah Portilho, Lucas de Araujo Horcel, Victor Edmond Seid
Colorectal Disease.2023; 25(11): 2284. CrossRef

First
Prev
Page of 1
Next
Last

Search