Figures
Abstract
Background
Rectal washout can prevent local recurrence after anterior resection of rectal cancer. Few studies have focused particularly on the association between irrigation fluids volume or agents and the risk of local recurrence after anterior resection of rectal cancer.
Objective
To estimate the association between irrigation fluids types, volumes of rectal washout and risk of local recurrence after anterior resection for cancer.
Data Sources
Relevant studies were identified by a search of Medline, Embase, Wiley Online Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Cochrane Oral Health Group Specialized Register, Wanfang databases and Google Website from their inception until October 18,2013.
Study Selection
Studies reporting the association between rectal washout types and volumes and risk of local recurrence after anterior resection for cancer were included.
Study Appraisal and Synthesis Methods
Random-effects model were used to obtain summary estimates of RR and 95% CI, with Stata version 11 and RevMan 5.2.5 softwares used. The quality of report was appraised in reference to the MINORS item.
Results
Of the 919 rectal cancer patients in 8 included studies, a total of 61(6.64%) cases of local recurrence were reported, with a pooled RR 0.51 (95%CI = 0.28–0.92, P = 0.03). The RRs 0.37 and 0.39 in normal saline and washout volume (≥1500 ml normal saline) subgroup, respectively, indicated that rectal washout with normal saline, or ≥1500 ml in volume could significantly reduce local recurrence (LR) rate (95% CI = 0.17–0.79, P = 0.01; 95% CI = 0.18–0.87, P = 0.02) after anterior resection for cancer.
Citation: Zhou C, Ren Y, Li J, Wang K, He J, Chen W, et al. (2014) Association between Irrigation Fluids, Washout Volumes and Risk of Local Recurrence of Anterior Resection for Rectal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of 427 Cases and 492 Controls. PLoS ONE 9(5): e95699. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0095699
Editor: Lorna Marson, Centre for Inflammation Research, United Kingdom
Received: November 24, 2013; Accepted: March 31, 2014; Published: May 13, 2014
Copyright: © 2014 Zhou et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Funding: The review has sufficient fund support for initiation and management from Prof. Peijun Liu, corresponding author in the manuscript, and Department of Surgical Oncology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Xi’an Jiaotong University. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript, except for the corresponding author Prof. Peijun Liu.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Post-operative local recurrence (LR) of rectal cancer may yield severe outcomes that are associated with severely disabling symptoms and difficult to treat [1]. The rate of LR is the highest in the first two years after anterior resection of rectal cancer [2]–[4], ranging from 3% to 50% [1], [5]–[7].
It was hypothesized one hundred years ago that “liberated cancer cells” may cause recurrence after surgery for rectal cancer [8], [9], and most surgeons today continue to avoid touching or manipulating a tumor excessively, so as not to spread malignant cells inside or outside the bowel. An accumulating number of studies have confirmed that free malignant cells are shed into the lumen of rectum [10]–[14], and that mechanical lavage or the tumoricidal agents contained in rectal washout has the potential to eradicate free malignant cells shed into the rectal stump[5], [14]–[16]. It also found that patients with rectal washout have a more favourable outcome than those without washout[3], [17]–[20]. Clinical evidence has also demonstrated that rectal washout is associated with reduced post-operative local recurrence [5], [21]–[27] and that the completeness of cleansing with irrigation fluid is volume-related [14], [28]. Nevertheless, few studies have focused particularly on the effects of the volume or agents contained in the employed irrigation liquid. These agents have inherent biological characteristics of tumoricidal efficacy, such as cetrimide, povidone-iodine, sodium hypochlorite and formalin[5], [16], [18], [29]–[33], and non-antineoplastic efficacy, such as normal saline [34].
Thus, at least two critical questions remain unanswered: i) whether association exists between irrigation fluid type and risk of local recurrence after anterior resection for cancer; ii) and whether washout volume influence the risk of local recurrence after anterior resection for cancer. These questions are important for both future research and current clinical practice.
This meta-analysis is conducted to comprehensively assess the overall evidence regarding local recurrence following rectal washout with different irrigation fluid types and washout volumes, by scrutinizing pertinent original research articles and analyzing the pooled data, with the aim of to provide meaningful clues for prevention of local recurrence after anterior resection in patients with rectal cancer.
Methods
The a priori review protocol was registered and published in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), with the registration number # CRD42013006467. This report complies with the preferred reporting items of PRISMA for systematic reviews and meta-analyses [35].
Criteria for Considering Studies for this Review
We included case controlled studies that enrolled adult patients with available rectal washout data. There was no minimum trial duration. Eligible studies were defined as studies used any type of rectal washout (i.e. normal saline, cetrimide, povidone-iodine or formalin) after anterior resection for cancer, with the following criteria to meet: i) comparing rectal washout (WO) with no washout (NWO); ii) characterizing the surgery as anterior resection or sphincter-sparing surgery, or as laparoscopic or hand-assisted resection; iii) in which the outcome was a local or anastomotic recurrence of rectal cancer and LR was diagnosed by palpation, imaging, endoscopy, cytopathology or histopathology. Control groups were defined as there was no any type of washout during the same study period as the experimental group.
The primary outcome was the associations between irrigation fluids type and risk of local recurrence for rectal cancer after anterior resection because the choice of fluids type is increasingly seen as important by medical workers, especially surgeons. The primary outcome was based on palpation, imaging, endoscopy, cytopathology or histopathology. Secondary outcome was the association s between washout volumes and risk of local recurrence after anterior resection for rectal cancer, as there has no conclusion that how much rectal washout is appropriate reducing the risk of local recurrence after anterior resection for cancer.
Search Methods for Identification of Studies
The meta-analysis was conducted according to the checklist of the Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology groups[36]–[37]. Medline, Embase, Wiley Online Library, Cochrane Oral Health Group Specialized Register and other sources such as Google Website were searched from their inception until October 18, 2013, using the terms “rectal washout”, “rectal irrigation”, “rectal neoplasms”, “rectal surgery”, “rectal stump”, “anterior resection”, “local recurrence”, and “local failure”. Relevant articles, which evaluate the risk of local recurrence or anastomotic recurrence by comparing patients with and without rectal washout, were identified. Both free text search and MeSH search were employed. The reference lists of the pertinent articles were also considered.
Selection of Studies
Two independent reviewers (Can Zhou and Yu Ren) blinded to the results of the other reviewer first screened all records at the title level. To enhance sensitivity, records were only removed if both reviewers excluded at the title level. The second level of review was at the abstract level followed by another round of review at the full-text level. All eligible studies were assessed a second time for relevance to ensure the objectivity of the review.
Data Extraction and Quality Assessment
The information extracted from each publication, in the form of a table, included the following: name of the lead investigator, year of publication, primary end points, follow-up time, methods for assessment of end points, proportions of men and women, total number of subjects, person-years of follow-up, number of events, and RRs or hazard ratios with 95% CIs. To ascertain the validity of the eligible studies, the quality of each report was appraised in reference to the 12 item described in methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS) a quality assessment tool specifically designed to assess the methodological quality of non-randomized surgical studies [38]. Two reviewers (Can Zhou and Juan Li)independently scored all of these criteria on a scale ranging from 0 to 2, depending on whether the criterion was not reported (0), reported but inadequate (1), or reported and adequate (2). We added the criterion ‘randomization’ as both randomized and nonrandomized controlled studies were included, and scored 0 for nonrandomized studies and 2 for randomized studies. Scoring differences were discussed until consensus was reached. The total quality score ranges from 0 (low quality) to 26 (high quality). When there was disagreement it was resolved by discussion with corresponding author, via e-mail or personal interview.
Assessment of Risk of Bias in Individual Studies
To assess heterogeneity[39]–[40], we used Begger’ Funnel Plot, Egger’s regression test, as well as Cochran’s heterogeneity statistics and Higgins I2 coefficient, a value that describes the percentage of variation across studies that are due to heterogeneity rather than chance, where I2 = 0% indicates no observed heterogeneity, with 25% regarded as low, 50% as moderate, and 75% as high. If notable heterogeneity was detected, a sensitivity analysis was performed for all studies to further investigate the study heterogeneity. Statistical significance for the interpretation of the Egger’s test was defined as P<0.10.
Data Synthesis
Random-effects model was used to obtain summary estimates of RR and 95% CI. We performed the analysis using Stata version 11 (StataCorp LP, College Station, Texas) and RevMan 5.2.5 (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, United Kingdom) softwares. The results from the random-effects model were reported since there was some difference in heterogeneity across trials. RRs were used to measure the treatment effect as final values between the rectal washout (WO) and no rectal washout (NWO) groups. The value RR<1 indicated a low risk of local recurrence and would be considered to be statistically significant if the 95% CI did not overlap 1. For all tests, a two-sided p-value below 0.05 was considered significant.
To validate the credibility of outcomes in this meta-analysis, sensitivity analysis was performed by sequential omission of each individual study using the “metaninf” Stata command.
Results
Results of the Search
The steps of our literature search are shown in figure 1. We retrieved 1,393 reports (of which 1,338 through database searching, 55 through other sources) in our preliminary search. Of these, 73 were excluded for duplicated, 1,303 were excluded for meeting the exclusion criteria. Of the remaining 13 studies[5], [16]–[18], [20]–[24], [26], [34], [41], [42],3 were excluded for meta-analyses [5], [26], [34], and 2 excluded for not mentioning irrigation types or washout volumes [41], [42]. Thus, 8 studies [17]–[19], [21]–[25] were included in this meta-analysis. The MINORS scores range from 16 to 20 points (Table 1). According to the quality criteria, all studies were moderate to high quality.
Study Characteristics
The characteristics of the eight included studies, which were performed in separate research centers and non-randomized controlled case-control ones, are shown in Table 2. A total of 919 patients were included in the meta-analysis, of whom 427 (46.5%) underwent rectal washout and 492 (53.5%) did not have rectal washout during anterior resection for rectal cancer, with an overall LR rate of 6.64% (61/919). Of the eight studies, six were prospective studies, two were retrospective ones. Four studies published in English, were conducted in Turkey [21], United Kingdom [17], China [25] and the United States [19], respectively. The remaining four studies[18], [22]–[24] published in Japanese were conducted in Japan. The Japanese papers were analyzed with the help of a Japanese translator. Local recurrence was reported in all the eight studies and anastomotic recurrence was reported in six studies. Five studies used normal saline[18], [22]–[25] as the washout solution but with different washout volumes, ranging from 600 ml to 2000 ml, and the remaining three studies used 1% cetrimide [17] (500 ml), 5% povidone-iodine [21] (500 ml) and 1% formaline [19] (10∼20 ml), respectively.
Association of Rectal Washout Solutions with Risk of Local Recurrence
The analysis on the effects of intra-operative rectal washout solutions on local recurrence (LR) status was based on 8 trials or 919 participants. A significant effect of WO in LR status (16/427, 3.75% vs. 45/492, 9.15%; RR = 0.51, 95%CI = 0.28–0.92, P = 0.03 was showed in figure 2, with no statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 0.00, Tau = 0.00, χ2 = 5.90, P = 0.55).
5 studies or 642 participants investigated the effect of normal saline washout on local recurrence (LR), with an overall LR rate of 6.23% (40/642). A difference in normal saline washout was showed to have a relevance to the reduction in risk of LR(8/287, 2.79% vs. 9.01%,32/355; RR = 0.37, 95% CI = 0.17–0.79, P = 0.01), with no statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 0.00, Tau = 0.00, χ2 = 1.72, P = 0.79).
The remaining three studies reported data on local recurrence in patients having rectal washout with 1% cetrimide, 5% povidone-iodine and 1% formaline, respectively. Local recurrence occurred in 4.44% (4/90) or 5.88% (3/51) of patients having cetrimide washout or not, in 7.89% (3/38) or 3.45% (2/58) of patients having povidone-iodine washout or not, in 8.33% (1/12) or 28.57% (8/28) of patients having formaline washout or not. No statistically significant differences were detected between the two groups in each pair (P>0.05).
Association of Washout Volume with Risk of Local Recurrence
To study the effect on readmission, data were available for 8 trials or 919 participants, of which 261 participants received 1500 ml and above rectal washout in volume for rectal washout during rectal cancer resection, 246 not, 166 received less than 1500 ml in volume and 246 not, as shown in figure 3. A difference in LR in 1500 ml and above subgroup was showed to have a relevance to the reduction in risk of AR (RR = 0.39, 95% CI = 0.18–0.87, P = 0.02), with no statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 0.00, Tau = 0.00, χ2 = 1.32, P = 0.72). But, less than 1500 ml in volume was not associated with a difference in LR (8/166, 4.82% vs. 16.12%,25/246; RR = 0.68, 95%CI = 0.24–1.95, P = 0.47). Statistical heterogeneity was low (I2 = 0.21, Tau = 0.24, χ2 = 5.79, P = 0.29).
Sensitivity Analysis
Sensitivity analyses (figure S1) indicated that three independent studies by Agaba et al, Terzi et al and Xingmao Z et al were the main origin of heterogeneity. The heterogeneity was decreased or vanished after deletion of study by Terzi et al, while the association still kept significant except for washout solutions subgroup (Table 3). In addition, no other single study influenced the pooled RR qualitatively, as indicated by sensitivity analyses, suggesting that the results of this meta-analysis are stable.
Publication Bias Analysis
Begg’s funnel plot (figure S2) and Egger’s test (Table 4) were performed to assess publication of included studies. The shapes of funnel plot did not reveal any evidence of obvious asymmetry in all genetic models. Egger’s test, which was applied to provide statistical evidence of funnel plot symmetry, did not indicated asymmetry of the funnel plot (P = 0.886), suggesting that no significant publication bias was found although significant heterogeneity between these studies was observed.
Discussion
Theoretically, post-operative local recurrence may occur for several reasons. In a majority of cases a prerequisite is that viable tumor cells remain in the pelvis after surgery [12], [13], [43]. This can occur in the following two principal ways: i)solid tumor tissue is left behind (for example in remaining bowel wall, mesorectum, pelvic side walls or lateral lymph nodes), ii)free viable tumor cells are left in the surgical field and implant (for example spillage from peritumoral perforations [44] or from the transected rectal lumen, or incorporation into the anastomosis [41]. We need to acknowledge that remaining solid tumor tissue has shrunk or disappear due to current advances in rectal cancer, such as stapling technique [45], [46], and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy [47]. Therefore, the remaining way was assumed to have relevance to the risk or local recurrence for rectal cancer owing to the viability of shed intraluminal cells was previously established and malignant cells were retrieved on circular staplers in unwashed rectal stumps. Furthermore, the speculation about had been confirmed by a series of in vitro and animal experiments. For instance, viable exfoliated tumor cells were demonstrated in 70%(52/74) specimens by Umpleby and colleagues [13], proven to be viable and capable of growth in vitro by Skipper and colleagues [43], and could result in mucosal implantation and intraluminal tumor growth after damaged the colon mucosa of the rats [48]. Then, intraoperative spillage of tumor cells were confirmed to influence the incidence of local recurrence, even after having total mesorectum excision [49],[50]. Consequently, rectal washout has the potential to eradicate free malignant cells shed into the rectal stump during anterior resection because of the mechanical washing or tumoricidal agents contained in the washout fluids [5], [14]–[16].
In our meta-analysis, the pooled RR 0.51(95% CI = 0.28–0.92, P = 0.03) indicated that application of rectal washout resulted in a statistically significant reduction of LR. The outcome was similar to those by Rondelli and colleagues [26] as well as Matsuda and colleagues [34]. But the RR value was lower than 0.57∼0.64 in the latter two studies. The differences may own to the fact that none of these previous meta-analyses included the studies published in 2013. In addition, the meta-analyses by Rondelli and colleagues [26] and Matsuda and colleagues [34] included the Kodada’s study [41] while the Kodada’s study was not included in our meta-analysis.
In clinical work, we know that rectal washout can be fall into two categories according to the containing agents in the irrigation fluids: non-tumoricidal agents (such as normal saline[18], [22]–[25]) and tumoricidal agents (such as cetrimide [17], povidone-iodine [21], and formalin [19]). Normal saline solution (0.9% w/v of NaCl), also known as 0.9% NaCl or physiological saline, had the same osmotic pressure as human plasma and has no damaging effect on normal cells or tumor cells, or no tumoricidal effect, and became one of the most common solutions used in cytological study. The subgroup analysis in our study, the pooled RR 0.37 (95% CI = 0.17–0.79, P = 0.01 ) in the normal saline group, reveals that rectal washout with normal saline alone can significantly reduce the risk of local recurrence of rectal cancer by 63%. The reason may be that exfoliated malignant cells can be mechanically removed from the distal rectum by rectal washout, primarily through mechanical cleansing, rather than any cytocidal effect of the irrigation fluid as was previously thought [14], [15]. However, there was a lack of power to show statistical significance in results when it comes to cetrimide, povidone-iodine, or formalin solution in our meta-analysis, with the reasons that the included studies had small or few events (local recurrences) or blood made povidone-iodine and cetrimide less efficient at killing colorectal cells [41]. It is impossible therefore to quantify contribution made by the lavage cetrimide, povidone-iodine or formaline. Moreover, we could not distinguish which washout solution was most effective at lowering local recurrence rates, irrespective of the serious complications induced by cytocidal solutions, such as cetrimide and chlorhexidine [51].
As before-mentioned, clinical evidence has demonstrated the completeness of cleansing with irrigation fluid is volume-related in eradication of intraluminal malignant cells during anterior resection [14], [28]. Sayfan and colleagues demonstrated that the effectiveness of washout by physiological solution depends on irrigation volumes, such that 1.5 L was required for tumors below the peritoneal reflection and 2 L for those above the peritoneal reflection [28]. Therefore, 1.5 L interested us and was used as volume boundary. In our analysis, the RRs 0.39 (95% CI = 0.18–0.87, P = 0.02) in the 1500 ml and above subgroup and 0.68 (95% CI = 0.24–1.95, P = 0.47) reveal that the application of 1.5 L irrigation fluid can reduce the risk of local recurrence for rectal cancer. The underlying mechanism from mechanical cleaning follows as: exfoliated malignant cells i) can be mechanically removed from the distal rectum and then resorpted by vacuum extractor, ii) flushed with irrigation fluid from damaged colon mucosa and serosa to intact areas, which results in mucosal implantation and intraluminal tumor growth due to the resistance to implantation through intact mucosa and serosa. But no matter the reason, the research shows that a thorough rectal irrigation will probably eliminate exfoliated malignant cells, and that a minimum of 1.5 liters of normal saline is recommend for rectal washout during rectal resection.
Nevertheless, the following limitations should be taken into consideration when the results of this study are interpreted. First of all, the relation may not necessarily be causal [52], because of possible confounding factors such as the treatment, or the characteristics of the tumor (such as pathologic type, differentiation degree, vascular invasion, lymphatic vessel invasion status, lymph node status, margin and operation type, or TNM-stage) [53]–[57]. For this reason, there still exists different opinions concerning whether rectal washout using a minimum of1.5 liters of normal saline during anterior resections for cancers is an independent prognostic factor for LR.
Secondly, the eight included studies are not randomized controlled trials (RCTs) but non-randomized case-control studies. RCTs provide better evidence for potential treatment effects/harms than non-randomized case-control studies. In the meta-analysis of the eight studies, the individual and pooled estimates comparing the preventive effects of different irrigation fluid types and volumes were not neutral [58]. But, we are convinced that surgeons will continue to perform this technique until strong evidence suggests otherwise [59], due to the low cost and ease involved.
Thirdly, it is important to note that the populations of the included studies were heterogeneous, most probably because of the diversity of the study designs, ethnic diversity, and lack of standardized protocol, which may result in an overestimation of the effect of rectal washout.
For all these limitations, our analysis supports reduction of LR or AR by rectal washout using 1.5 liters or more than 1.5 liters of normal saline during anterior resection of rectal cancer. However, clinicians should be provided with an additional incentive to pay integrated clinical attention and elucidate the complex interactions between washout types or irrigation volumes and local recurrence of rectal cancer.
Conclusions
Our meta-analysis favors reduction of LR by rectal washout using a minimum of 1.5 liters of normal saline during anterior resection of rectal cancer. However, since no RCTs included, our findings underscored the need for perspective multicenter randomized studies to confirm this potential benefit.
Supporting Information
Figure S1.
Sensitivity Analysis Plot of 8 Included Studies.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0095699.s001
(TIF)
Figure S2.
Begger’ Funnel Plot of 8 Included Studies.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0095699.s002
(TIF)
Author Contributions
Conceived and designed the experiments: PL WC. Performed the experiments: CZ YR. Analyzed the data: CZ KW. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: CZ JH JL. Wrote the paper: CZ YR. Obtained permission for use of cell line: WC JL.
References
- 1. Kaiser AM, Kang JC, Chan LS, Beart RW (2006) The prognostic impact of the time interval to recurrence for the mortality in recurrent colorectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 8: 696–703.
- 2. Kapiteijn E, Marijnen CA, Colenbrander AC, Klein Kranenbarg E, Steup WH, et al. (1998) Local recurrence in patients with rectal cancer, diagnosed between 1988 and 1992: a population-based study in the west Netherlands. Eur J Surg Oncol 24: 528–535.
- 3. Juhl G, Larson GM, Mullins R, Bond S, Polk HC Jr (1990) Six-year results of annual colonoscopy after resection of colorectal cancer. World J Surg 14: 255–260.
- 4. Krivokapic Z, Barisic G, Markovic V, Popovic M, Antic S, et al. (2004) First thousand rectal cancer cases: local recurrence and survival. Acta Chir Iugosl 51: 133–137.
- 5. Constantinides VA, Cheetham D, Nicholls RJ, Tekkis PP (2008) Is Rectal Washout Effective for Preventing Localized Recurrence After Anterior Resection for Rectal Cancer?. Dis Colon Rectum 51: 1339–1344.
- 6. Das P, Skibber JM, Rodriguez-Bigas MA, Feig BW, Chang GJ, et al. (2006) Clinical and pathologic predictors of locoregional recurrence, distant metastasis, and overall survival in patients treated with chemoradiation and mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Am J Clin Oncol 29: 219–224.
- 7. McCall JL, Cox MR, Wattchow DA (1995) Analysis of local recurrence rates after surgery alone for rectal cancer. Int J Colorect Dis 10: 126–132.
- 8. Turner GG, Pannett CA, Lloyd-Davies OV (1948) Discussion on radical excision of carcinoma of the rectum with conservation of the sphincters. Proc. Roy. Soc. Med 41: 822–827.
- 9. Goligher JC, Dues CE, Bussey HJ (1951) Local recurrences after sphincter-saving excision for carcinoma of the rectum and rectosigmoid. Br J Surg 39: 199–211.
- 10. McGregor JR, Galloway DJ, McCulloch P, George WD (1989) Anastomotic suture materials and implantation metastasis: an experimental study. Br J Surg 76: 331–334.
- 11. Hubens G, Lafullarde T, Van Marck E, Vermeulen P, Hubens A (1994) Implantation of colon cancers cells on intact and damaged colon mucosa and serosa: an experimental study in rat. Acta Chir Belg 94: 258–262.
- 12. Tsunoda A, Shibusawa M, Kawamura M, Murakami M, Kusano M (1997) Recurrent colonic cancer developing at the site of a stapled stump: report a case. Surg Today 27: 457–459.
- 13. Umpleby HC, Fermor B, Symes MO, Williamson RC (1984) Viability of exfoliated colorectal carcinoma cells. Br J Surg 71: 659–663.
- 14. Sayfan J, Averbuch F, Koltun L, Benyamin N (2000) Effect of rectal stump washout on the presence of free malignant cells in the rectum during anterior resection for rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 43: 1710–1712.
- 15. Jenner DC, de Boer WB, Clarke G, Levitt MD (1998) Rectal washout eliminates exfoliated malignant cells. Dis Colon Rectum 41: 1432–1434.
- 16. Basha G, Penninckx F, Mebis J, Filez L, Geboes K, et al. (1999) Local and systemic effects of intraoperative whole-colon washout with 5 percent povidone-iodine. Br J Surg 86: 219–226.
- 17. Agaba EA (2004) Does Rectal Washout During Anterior Resection Prevent Local Tumor Recurrence?. Dis Colon Rectum 47: 291–296.
- 18. Fukuda I, Kameyama M, Imaoka S, Furukawa H, Ishikawa O, et al. (1991) Prevention of local recurrence after sphincter-saving resection for rectal cancer. Gan To Kagaku Ryoho 18: 1965–1967.
- 19. Long RT, Edwards RH (1989) Implantation metastasis as a cause of local recurrence of colorectal carcinoma. Am J Surg 157: 194–201.
- 20. Radice E, Dozois RR (2001) Locally recurrent rectal cancer. Dig Surg 18: 355–362.
- 21. Terzi C, Unek T, Sağol O, Yilmaz T, Füzün M, et al. (2006) Is rectal washout necessary in anterior resection for rectal cancer? A prospective clinical study. World J Surg 30: 233–241.
- 22. Kawahara H, Hirai K, Aoki T (1998) Usefulness of intraluminal lavage for post-operative anastomosis recurrence in rectal cancer cases with double stapling technique [in Japanese]. Nippon Rinsho Geka Gakkai Zasshi 31: 56–60.
- 23. Makano N, Naoki N, Hironobu S, Sumito S, Masanobu T, et al. (2004) Examination of exfoliated malignant cells collected with intraluminal lavage in anterior resection [in Japanese]. Juntendo Igaku 50: 373–379.
- 24. Shinto E, Mochizuki H, Tamakuma S (1996) Improvement of anastomotic recurrence rate of rectal cancer by intraoperative anal side rectal lavage [in Japanese]. Nippon Daicho Komonbyo Gakkai Zasshi. 49: 399–404.
- 25. Xingmao Z, Jianjun B, Zheng W, Jianwei L, Junjie H, et al. (2013) Analysis of outcomes of intraoperative rectal washout in patients with rectal ca-ncer during anterior resection. Med Oncol 30: 386.
- 26. Rondelli F, Trastulli S, Cirocchi R, Avenia N, Mariani E, et al. (2012) Rectal washout and local recurrence in rectal resection for cancer: a meta-analysis. Dis Colon Rectum 14: 1313–1321.
- 27. Harrold K, Gould D, Drey N (2013) The efficacy of saline washout technique in the management of exfoliant and vesicant chemotherapy extravasation: a historical case series report. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 22: 169–178.
- 28. Maeda K, Maruta M, Hanai T, Sato H, Horibe Y (2004) Irrigation volume determines the efficacy of “rectal washout”. Dis Colon Rectum 47: 1706–1710.
- 29. Tsunoda A, Shibusawa M, Tsunoda Y, Kamiyama G, Yamazaki K, et al. (1999) Effect of povidone-iodine on anastomotic tumor growth in an experimental model of colorectal cancer surgery. Anticancer Res 19: 1149–1152.
- 30. Hale JE (1969) The value of mercury perchloride and other agents in reducing tumour recurrence in colon anastomosis. Proc R Soc 62: 713–714.
- 31. Cullen PT, Komborozos V, Boulos PB (1989) Does irrigation with cancericidal agent reduce local recurrence rate after resection for colonic carcinoma? Gut 30: 1470.
- 32. Saeed WR, Stewart J, Benson EA (1991) Cetrimide lavage: ineffective and potentially toxic. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 73: 26.
- 33. Hubens G, Williams G (1990) Factors influencing the implantation of colon cancer cells on the colonic suture line in rats. Eur Surg Res 22: 356–64.
- 34. Matsuda A, Kishi T, Musso G, Matsutani T, Yokoi K, et al. (2013) The Effect of Intraoperative Rectal Washout on Local Recurrence after Rectal Cancer Surgery: A Meta-Analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 20: 856–863.
- 35. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 151: 264–269.
- 36. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, et al. (2000) Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in EpidemiologyA Proposal for Reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 283: 2008–2012.
- 37. Manchikanti L, Datta S, Smith HS, Hirsch JA (2009) Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines in interventional pain management: part 6. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies. Pain Physician 12: 819–850.
- 38. Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D, Kwiatkowski F, Panis Y, et al. (2003) Methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg 73: 712–716.
- 39. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C (1997) Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 315: 629–634.
- 40.
Higgins JPT, Green S [updated March 2011] Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.
- 41. Kodeda K, Holmberg E, Jörgren F, Nordgren S, Lindmark G (2010) Rectal washout and local recurrence of cancer after anterior resection. Br J Surg 97: 1589–1597.
- 42. Jörgren F, Johansson R, Damber L, Lindmark G (2010) Risk Factors of Rectal Cancer Local Recurrence:Population-based Survey and Validation of the Swedish Rectal Cancer Registry. Colorectal Dis 12: 977–986.
- 43. Skipper D, Cooper AJ, Marston JE, Taylor I (1987) Exfoliated cells and in vitro growth in colorectal cancer. Br J Surg 74: 1049–1052.
- 44. Eriksen MT, Wibe A, Syse A, Haffner J, Wiig JN (2004) Inadvertent perforation during rectal cancer resection in Norway. Br J Surg 91: 210–216.
- 45. Han F, Li H, Zheng D, Gao H, Zhang Z (2010) A new sphincter-preserving operation for low rectal cancer: ultralow anterior resection and colorectal/coloanal anastomosis by supporting bundling-up method. Int J Colorectal Dis 25: 873–880.
- 46. Edwards D, Sexton R, Heald R, Moran B (2007) Long-term results show triple stapling facilitates safe low colorectal and coloanal anastomosis and is associated with low rates of local recurrence after anterior resection for rectal cancer. Tech Coloproctol 11: 17–21.
- 47. Peng JY, Li ZN, Wang Y (2013) Risk factors for local recurrence following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancers. World J Gastroenterol 28 19: 5227–537.
- 48. Hubens G, Lafullarde T, Van Marck E, Vermeulen P, Hubens A (1994) Implantation of colon cancer cells on intact and damaged colon mucosa and serosa: an experimental study in the rat. Acta Chir Belg 94: 258–262.
- 49. Charles A Slanetz (1984) The effect of inadvertent intraoperative perforation on survival and recurrence in colorectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 27: 792–797.
- 50. Zirngibl H; Husemann B; Hermanek P (1990) Intraoperative spillage of tumor cells in surgery for rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 33: 610–614.
- 51. Liu SY, Lee JF, Ng SS, Li JC, Yiu RY (2007) Rectal stump lavage: simple procedure resulting in life-threatening complication. Asian J Surg. 30: 72–74.
- 52. Johnson JA, Gale EA (2010) Diabetes, insulin use, and cancer risk: are observational studies part of the solution-or part of the problem? Diabetes 59: 1129–1131.
- 53. Heald RJ, Moran BJ, Ryall RD, Sexton R, MacFarlane JK (1998) Rectal cancer: the Basingstoke experience of total mesorectal excision, 1978–1997. Arch Surg 133: 894–899.
- 54. Burton S, Brown G, Daniels IR, Norman AR, Mason B, et al. (2006) MRI directed multidisciplinary team preoperative treatment strategy: the way to eliminate positive circumferential margins? Br J Cancer 94: 351–357.
- 55. Wibe A, Carlsen E, Dahl O, Tveit KM, Weedon-Fekjaer H, et al. (2006) The Norwegian Rectal Cancer Group. Nationwide quality assurance of rectal cancer treatment. Colorectal Di s 8: 224–229.
- 56. Pahlman L, Bohe M, Cedermark B, Dahlberg M, Lindmark G, et al. (2007) The Swedish Rectal Cancer Registry. Br J Surg 94: 1285–1292.
- 57. Peeters KC, Marijnen CA, Nagtegaal ID, Kranenbarg EK, Putter H, et al. (2007) Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group. The TME trial after a median follow-up of 6 years: increased local control but no survival benefit in irradiated patients with resectable rectal carcinoma. Ann Surg 246: 693–701.
- 58. Noto H, Goto A, Tsujimoto T, Noda M (2012) Cancer Risk in Diabetic Patients Treated with Metformin: A Systematic Review and meta-analysis. PLoS One7: e33411.
- 59. Byrne CM, Perer DS, King DW (2005) Does rectal washout during anterior resection prevent local tumor recurrence? Dis Colon Rectum 48: 172–173.