Continuous sump-suction drainage of the pelvis after low anterior resection: a reappraisal

To drain or not to drain: A propensity score analysis of abdominal drainage after colorectal surgery for endometriosis

AIM

To assess the benefit of prophylactic abdominal drainage (AD) after colorectal surgery for endometriosis.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study of 215 patients who underwent colorectal surgery for endometriosis using a mini-invasive approach in our center from February 2019 to July 2023. A propensity score matched (PSM) analysis (1:1 ratio) identified two groups of patients with similar characteristics. Postoperative outcomes were then compared.

RESULTS

In the unmatched cohort, 151 patients (70 %) had AD at the end of surgery and 64 (30 %) did not. Clinical characteristics and surgical procedures were comparable between the groups after PSM. After PSM, AD was associated with a longer hospital stay (p < 0.001) and a greater number of postoperative complications (p = 0.03). There were no differences for readmission, repeat surgery, or severe postoperative complications.

CONCLUSION

In this retrospective cohort of patients undergoing colorectal resection for endometriosis using a mini-invasive approach, prophylactic AD was not found to be beneficial.

Cyanoacrylate in Colorectal Surgery: Is It Safe?

Anastomotic leakage (AL) of a gastrointestinal (GI) anastomosis continues to be an important complication in GI surgery. Since its introduction more than 60 years ago, Cyanoacrylate (CA) has gained popularity in colorectal surgery to provide "prophylaxis" against AL. However, although in surgical practice it is increasingly used, evidence on humans is still lacking. The aim of this study is to analyze in humans the safety of CA to seal colorectal anastomosis. All consecutive patients from Jannuary 2022 through December 2022 who underwent minimally invasive colorectal surgery were retrospectively analyzed from a prospectively maintained database. Inclusion criteria were a histological diagnosis of cancer, a totally minimally invasive procedure, and the absence of intraoperative complications. 103 patients were included in the study; N-butyl cyanoacrylate with metacryloxisulfolane (Glubran 2®) was used to seal colorectal anastomosis, no adverse reactions to CA or postoperative complications related to inflammation and adhesions occurred; and only one case of AL (0.9%) was recorded. We can consider this study an important proof of concept on the safety of CA to seal colorectal anastomosis. It opens the possibility of starting prospective and comparative studies in humans to evaluate the effectiveness of CA in preventing colorectal AL.

Routine placement of abdominal drainage in pouch surgery does not impact on surgical outcomes

The evidence does not support the routine use of abdominal drainage (AD) in colorectal surgery. However, there is no data on the usefulness of AD, specifically, after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA). The aim of this study is to assess post-operative outcomes of patients undergoing IPAA with or without AD at a high volume referral center. A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of consecutive patients undergoing IPAA with AD (AD group) or without AD (NAD group) was performed. Baseline characteristics, operative, and postoperative data were analyzed and compared between the two groups. A total of 97 patients were included in the analysis, 46 were in AD group and 51 in NAD group. AD group had a higher BMI (23.9 ± 3.9 kg/m² vs 21.9 ± 3.0 kg/m²; p = 0.007) and more commonly underwent two-stage proctocolectomy with IPAA compared to the NAD group (50.0% vs 3.9%; p < 0.001). There was no difference in anastomotic leak rate (6.5% AD vs 5.9% NAD group; p = 1.000), major post-operative complication (8.6% vs 7.9%; p = 0.893); median length of stay [IQR] (5 [5-7] days vs 5 [4-7] days; p = 0.305) and readmission < 90 days (8.7% vs 3.9%; p = 0.418). The use of AD does not impact on surgical outcome after IPAA and question the actual benefit of its routine placement.

A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials on the Use of Suction Drains Following Rectal Surgery

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic leakage is one of the most feared complications of rectal resections. The role of drains in limiting this occurrence or facilitating its early recognition is still poorly defined. We aimed to study whether the presence of prophylactic pelvic drains affects the surgical outcomes of patients undergoing rectal surgery with extraperitoneal anastomosis.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials comparing drained with undrained anastomoses following rectal surgery. We evaluated possible differences on the relative incidences of anastomotic leakage, pelvic collection or sepsis, bowel obstruction, reoperation rate, and overall mortality. A meta-analysis of relevant studies was performed with RevMan 5.3.

RESULTS

A total of 760 patients from 4 randomized controlled studies were considered eligible for data extraction. The use of drains did not show any advantage in terms of anastomotic leak (OR 0.99), pelvic complications (OR 0.87), reintervention (OR 0.84) and mortality. Contrariwise, the incidence of postoperative bowel obstruction was significantly higher in the drained group (OR 1.61).

CONCLUSIONS

The routine utilization of pelvic drains does not confer any significant advantage in the prevention of postoperative complications after rectal surgery with extraperitoneal anastomosis. Moreover, a higher risk of postoperative bowel obstruction can be of concern.

Prophylactic pelvic drainage after rectal resection with extraperitoneal anastomosis: is it worthwhile? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The role of prophylactic pelvic drainage in reducing the postoperative complication rate after rectal surgery remains unclear and controversial.

OBJECTIVE

This review and meta-analysis of prospective randomized controlled trials was performed to determine whether drainage of the extraperitoneal anastomosis after rectal surgery impacts the postoperative complication rate.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Study eligibility criteria included randomized controlled trials comparing prophylactic pelvic drainage after rectal surgery.

METHODS

The Medline and Cochrane Trials Register databases were searched for prospective randomized controlled trials comparing drainage versus no drainage after rectal surgery. Studies published until December 2016 were included. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.0 (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK).

RESULTS

Three randomized controlled trials involving 660 patients with extraperitoneal anastomosis after rectal surgery (330 with and 330 without prophylactic pelvic drains) were included. The overall mortality rate was 0.7% (2/267) in the drain group and 1.9% (5/261) in the no-drain group (P = 0.900). The anastomotic leakage rate was 14.8% (49/330) in the drain group and 16.7% (55/330) in the no-drain group (P = 0.370). The postoperative small bowel obstruction rate was significantly higher in the drain than no-drain group (50/267, 18.7% vs. 33/261, 12.6%; odds ratio, 1.61; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-2.60; P = 0.050).

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic use of pelvic drainage after extraperitoneal colorectal anastomosis has no impact on the incidence of anastomotic leakage or postoperative death. However, it significantly increases the rate of postoperative small bowel obstruction.

To drain or not to drain in colorectal anastomosis: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Currently, many surgeons place a prophylactic drain in the abdominal or pelvic cavity after colorectal anastomosis as a conventional treatment. However, some trials have demonstrated that this procedure may not be beneficial to the patients.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether prophylactic placement of a drain in colorectal anastomosis can reduce postoperative complications.

METHODS

We systematically searched all the electronic databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared routine use of drainage to non-drainage regimes after colorectal anastomosis, using the terms "colorectal" or "colon/colonic" or "rectum/rectal" and "anastomo*" and "drain or drainage." Reference lists of relevant articles, conference proceedings, and ongoing trial databases were also screened. Primary outcome measures were clinical and radiological anastomotic leakage. Secondary outcome measures included mortality, wound infection, re-operation, and respiratory complications. We assessed the eligible studies for risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Two authors independently extracted data.

RESULTS

Eleven RCTs were included (1803 patients in total, 939 patients in the drain group and 864 patients in the no drain group). Meta-analysis showed that there was no statistically significant differences between the drain group and the no drain group in (1) overall anastomotic leakage (relative risk (RR) = 1.14, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.80-1.62, P = 0.47), (2) clinical anastomotic leakage (RR = 1.39, 95 % CI 0.80-2.39, P = 0.24), (3) radiologic anastomotic leakage (RR = 0.92, 95 % CI 0.56-1.51, P = 0.74), (4) mortality (RR = 0.94, 95 % CI 0.57-1.55, P = 0.81), (5) wound infection (RR = 1.19, 95 % CI 0.84-1.69, P = 0.34), (6) re-operation (RR = 1.18, 95 % CI 0.75-1.85, P = 0.47), and (7) respiratory complications (RR = 0.82, 95 % CI 0.55-1.23, P = 0.34).

CONCLUSIONS

Routine use of prophylactic drainage in colorectal anastomosis does not benefit in decreasing postoperative complications.

Cyanoacrylate for colonic anastomosis; is it safe?

BACKGROUND

This experimental study evaluated the effectiveness and safety of using cyanoacrylate adhesive for sutureless colonic anastomosis and as a protective seal to prevent leakage.

METHODS

Sixty male Sprague-Dawley rats (300 +/- 10 g, 9 weeks old) were divided into three groups: in group I, the anastomosis was sutured in a single layer with 5-0 polypropylene; in group II, the anastomosis was fixed using N-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate (Histoacryl(R)); and in group III, the anastomosis was sutured and then sealed with N-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate. The rats were sacrificed on postoperative day 7. The anastomoses among the three groups were compared by measuring wound infection, anastomotic leakage, anastomotic stricture, adhesion formation, anastomotic bursting pressure, and histological appearance.

RESULTS

No anastomotic leakage was observed in any group. Anastomotic stricture was significantly more extensive in groups II and III (p < 0.001). Bursting pressure was significantly lower in groups II and III (168 +/- 58, 45 +/- 21, and 60 +/- 38 mmHg for groups I to III, respectively, p < 0.001). The severity of inflammatory reactions was significantly greater and collagen deposition was significantly lower in groups II and III (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

N-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate could be a useful method for sutureless colonic anastomosis based on the absence of anastomotic leakage, but it may impede healing of the colonic anastomosis. In addition, when used to seal sutured colonic anastomoses, cyanoacrylate may have a negative influence on anastomotic healing. The clinical use of N-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate in colonic anastomosis does not appear to be acceptable and safer anastomotic methods or alternative forms of cyanoacrylate should be developed.

Simplified anterior resection: Use of the ta stapler

Forty consecutive anterior resections using TA stapler were studied. No mortality, no clinical leak, and no infection were encountered in this group. The stapler is recommended as an aid in simplifying the operation and lessening the operative time.

Is prophylactic pelvic drainage useful after elective rectal or anal anastomosis? A multicenter controlled randomized trial. French Association for Surgical Research

OBJECTIVE

We investigated the role of drainage in the prevention of complications after elective rectal or anal anastomosis in the pelvis. Anastomotic leakage after colorectal resection is more prevalent when the anastomosis is in the distal or infraperitoneal pelvis than in the abdomen. The benefit of pelvic drains versus their potential harm has been questioned. Drain-related complications include (1) those possibly benefiting from drainage (leakage, intra-abdominal infection, bleeding) and (2) those possibly caused by drainage (wound infection or hernia, intestinal obstruction, fistula).

METHODS

Between September 1990 and June 1995, 494 patients (249 men and 245 women), mean age 66 +/- 15 (range 15 to 101) years, with either carcinoma, benign tumor, colonic Crohn's disease, diverticular disease of the sigmoid colon, or another disorder located anywhere from the right colon to the midrectum undergoing resection followed by rectal or anal anastomosis were randomized to undergo either drainage (n = 248) with 2 multiperforated 14F suction drains or no drainage (n = 246). The primary end point was the number of patients with one or more postoperative drain-related complications. Secondary end points included severity of these complications as assessed by the rate of related repeat operations and associated deaths as well as extra-abdominally related morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

After withdrawal of 2 patients (1 in each group) both groups were comparable with regard to preoperative characteristics and intraoperative findings. The overall leakage rate was 6.3% with no significant difference between those with or without drainage. There were 18 deaths (3.6%), 8 (3.2%) in those with drainage and 10 (4%) in those without drainage. Five patients with anastomotic leakage died (1%), 3 of whom had drainage. There were 32 repeat operations (6.5%) for anastomotic leakage 11 in the group with drainage and 4 in the group with no drainage. The rate of these and the other intra-abdominal and extra-abdominal complications did not differ significantly between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic drainage of the pelvic space does not improve outcome or influence the severity of complications.

Colon and rectal anastomoses do not require routine drainage: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Many surgeons continue to place a prophylactic drain in the pelvis after completion of a colorectal anastomosis, despite considerable evidence that this practice may not be useful. The authors conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to determine if placement of a drain after a colonic or rectal anastomosis can reduce the rate of complications.

METHODS

A search of the Medline database of English-language articles published from 1987 to 1997 was conducted using the terms "colon," "rectum," "postoperative complications," "surgical anastomosis," and "drainage." A manual search was also conducted. Four randomized controlled trials, including a total of 414 patients, were identified that compared the routine use of drainage of colonic and/or rectal anastomoses to no drainage. Two reviewers assessed the trials independently. Trial quality was critically appraised using a previously published scale, and data on mortality, clinical and radiologic anastomotic leakage rate, wound infection rate, and major complication rate were extracted.

RESULTS

The overall quality of the studies was poor. Use of a drain did not significantly affect the rate of any of the outcomes examined, although the power of this analysis to exclude any difference was low. Comparison of pooled results revealed an odds ratio for clinical leak of 1.5 favoring the control (no drain) group. Of the 20 observed leaks among all four studies that occurred in a patient with a drain in place, in only one case (5%) did pus or enteric content actually appear in the effluent of the existing drain.

CONCLUSIONS

Any significant benefit of routine drainage of colon and rectal anastomoses in reducing the rate of anastomotic leakage or other surgical complications can be excluded with more confidence based on pooled data than by the individual trials alone. Additional well-designed randomized controlled trials would further reinforce this conclusion.

Randomized trial of pelvic drainage after rectal resection

Most surgeons continue to advocate routine use of drains after pelvic anastomoses. Several recent studies have, however, demonstrated that patients gain little or no benefit from such drainage and that drains may indeed be a source of morbidity to some.

PURPOSE

The aim of this trial was twofold: 1) to determine whether use of a high pressure, closed suction pelvic drain was associated with reduced morbidity; 2) to investigate the influence of drainage on postoperative fluid collections after rectal resection.

METHODS

A consecutive series of 100 patients was randomized to receive either no drain (n = 48) or a high pressure, closed suction intraperitoneal drain for seven days (n = 52). The two groups were similar in terms of age, sex, diagnosis, and type of anastomosis. Patients underwent postoperative pelvic ultrasound and water-soluble contrast studies on day 7.

RESULTS

There were six deaths (three drain, three no drain). Clinically significant anastomotic leak occurred in seven patients (five drain, two no drain), and a radiologic leak was demonstrated in another five patients (two drain, three no drain), each of whom remained well. Presence or absence of a drain did not influence rate of morbidity and mortality. Pelvic fluid collections were more likely to be demonstrated if a drain was used; however, this did not reach statistical significance. Neither pus nor feces emerged from the drain in any patients in whom a leak occurred.

CONCLUSION

Use of a pelvic drain after rectal resection did not confer any benefit to the patient.

Postoperative irrigation-suction drainage after pelvic colonic surgery. A prospective randomized trial

A 2-year randomized prospective clinical trial was undertaken to determine whether postoperative irrigation of the pelvis would result in a decreased incidence of local septic complications. Two hundred consecutive patients undergoing low pelvic procedures with rectal resection and entry of the presacral space by a single surgeon, were randomized. In the irrigation group, two of four presacral sump drains were placed to low intermittent suction and the remaining sumps infused continuously with saline until the effluent was clear. In the drainage alone group, all four presacral sump drains were placed to suction. Drains were removed when drainage was less than 50 ml/24 hours. Perioperative antibiotics and bowel preparation were identical. Postoperative complications included pelvic abscess (n = 7), anastomotic leak/cuff sinus (n = 11), abdominal wound infection (n = 19), and perineal wound infection (n = 5). Postoperative irrigation of the pelvis did not result in a reduction in the overall rate of local pelvic septic complications. Positive intraoperative presacral cultures, the presence of anaerobes in the presacral space, and duration of pelvic drainage had no effect on the development of pelvic sepsis.

[Does retroperitonealization of anastomoses in left-sided large intestine resections lower postoperative mortality?]

601 low anterior anastomoses of the rectum are analysed concerning suture techniques, leakage rate and operative mortality. None of the patients who developed a dehiscence (9.3%) died due to the extraperitoneal position of the anastomosis and the continuous sump-suction drainage of the retroperitoneum. The operative mortality was 1.5%.

Anterior resection for adenocarcinoma. Lahey Clinic experience from 1963 through 1969

The results of anterior resection for adenocarcinoma of the rectum and rectosigmoid are reported with respect to survival rates and complications. Anastomotic recurrence is related to low lying, ulcerated, and less well differentiated tumors that have penetrated the bowel wall. The incidence of recurrent disease at the anastomosis increases with decreases in the margin of resection. Distal margins of at least 6 cm offer significant protection from recurrence. This study shows that anastomotic septic and fistulous complications are related to advanced age, diabetes, anemia, atherosclerotic disease, construction of the anastomosis below the peritoneal reflection, perforated bowel, obstructed bowel, and the use of drains. The determination of those factors that correlate with the development of anastomotic complications can be accomplished with pre- and intraoperative examinations. The role of these factors in operative decision-making and patient management is emphasized.