Evaluation of selective defunctioning stoma after low anterior resection for rectal cancer

Clinical risk factors and Risk assessment model for Anastomotic leakage after Rectal cancer resection

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic leakage (AL) is the most serious complication after rectal cancer surgery. Risk factors associated with AL have been documented in previous studies; however, the consensus is still lacking. In this retrospective study, we aimed to identify risk factors for AL after rectal cancer resection and to create an accurate and effective tool for predicting the risk of this complication.

METHODS

The study cohort comprised of 276 patients with rectal cancer who had undergone anterior resection between 2015 and 2020. Twenty-four selected variables were assessed by univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses to identify independent risk factors of AL. A risk assessment model for predicting the risk of AL was established on the basis of the regression coefficients of each identified independent risk factor.

RESULTS

Anastomotic leakage occurred in 20 patients (7.2%, 20/276). Multivariate analysis identified the following variables as independent risk or protective factors of AL: perioperative ileus ( P < 0.001, odds ratio [OR] = 14.699), tumor size ≥5 cm ( P = 0.025, OR = 3.925), distance between tumor and anal verge <7.5 cm ( P = 0.045, OR = 3.512), obesity ( P = 0.032, OR = 7.256), and diverting stoma ( P = 0.008, OR = 0.143). A risk assessment model was constructed and patients were allocated to high-, medium-, and low-risk groups on the basis of risk model scores of 5-7, 2-4, and 0-1, respectively. The incidences of AL in these three groups were 61.5%, 11.9%, and 2.0%, respectively ( P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our risk assessment model accurately and effectively identified patients at high risk of AL and could be useful in aiding decision-making aimed at minimizing adverse outcomes associated with leakage.

Could Stoma Be Avoided after Laparoscopic Low Anterior Resection for Rectal Cancer? Experience with Transanal Tube in 195 Cases

Anastomotic leakage is the most-feared complication of rectal surgery. Transanal devices have been suggested for anastomotic protection as an alternative to defunctioning stoma, although evidence is conflicting, and no single device is widely used in clinical practice. The aim of this paper is to investigate the safety and efficacy of a transanal tube for the prevention of leakage following laparoscopic rectal cancer resection. A transanal tube was used in the cases of total mesorectal excision with low colorectal or coloanal anastomosis, undamaged doughnuts, and negative intraoperative air-leak test. The transanal tube was kept in place until the seventh postoperative day. A total of 195 consecutive patients were retrieved from a prospective surgical database and included in the study. Of these, 71.8% received preoperative chemoradiotherapy. The perioperative mortality rate was 1.0%. Anastomotic leakage occurred in 19 patients, accounting for an incidence rate of 9.7%. Among these, 13 patients underwent re-laparoscopy and ileostomy, while 6 patients were managed conservatively. Overall, the stoma rate was 6.7%. The use of a transanal tube may be a suitable strategy for anastomotic protection following restorative rectal cancer resection. This approach could avoid the burden of a stoma in selected patients with low anastomoses.

Risk factors for peristomal skin disorders associated with temporary ileostomy construction

PURPOSE

Skin disorders are the most common stoma-related complications after temporary diverting loop ileostomy with proctectomy. The aim of the present study was to investigate risk factors for skin disorders associated with temporary ileostomy construction.

METHODS

A total of 185 consecutive patients who underwent curative proctectomy with temporary diverting loop ileostomy for rectal malignancies at a single comprehensive cancer center between 2013 and 2018 were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

The most frequent stoma-related complications were skin disorders (n = 62, 33.5%), followed by mucocutaneous separation (n = 38, 20.5%) and high-output stoma (n = 34, 18.4%). Patients with skin disorders had a higher median body mass index (BMI; 22.4 vs. 21.3 kg/m², P = 0.002) and lower stoma height (16 vs. 20 mm, P < 0.001) than those without skin disorders. According to a multivariable logistic regression analysis, independent predictors of skin disorders included overweight (median BMI ≥ 25 kg/m² [odds ratio = 3.6, 95% confidence interval: 1.5-8.6], P = 0.004) and lower stomal height (median stoma height < 20 mm [odds ratio = 3.2, 95% confidence interval: 1.6-6.3], P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Overweight and lower stoma height are correlated with the presence of skin disorders. Construction of a well-elevated stoma can reduce skin disorders associated with temporary ileostomy construction.

Latest Advances in Intersphincteric Resection for Low Rectal Cancer

Background

Intersphincteric resection (ISR) has been a preferable alternative to abdominoperineal resection (APR) for anal preservation in patients with low rectal cancer. Laparoscopic ISR and robotic ISR have been widely used with the proposal of 2 cm or even 1 cm rule of distal free margin and the development of minimally invasive technology. The aim of this review was to describe the newest advancements of ISR.

Methods

A comprehensive literature review was performed to identify studies on ISR techniques, preoperative chemoradiotherapy (PCRT), complications, oncological outcomes, and functional outcomes and thereby to summarize relevant information and controversies involved in ISR.

Results

Although PCRT is employed to avoid positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) and decrease local recurrence, it tends to engender damage of anorectal function and patients' quality of life (QoL). Common complications after ISR include anastomotic leakage (AL), anastomotic stricture (AS), urinary retention, fistula, pelvic sepsis, and prolapse. CRM involvement is the most important predictor for local recurrence. Preoperative assessment and particularly rectal endosonography are essential for selecting suitable patients. Anal dysfunction is associated with age, PCRT, location and growth of anastomotic stoma, tumour stage, and resection of internal sphincter.

Conclusions

The ISR technique seems feasible for selected patients with low rectal cancer. However, the postoperative QoL as a result of functional disorder should be fully discussed with patients before surgery.

Morbidity of Diverting Ileostomy for Rectal Cancer: Analysis of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program

There is controversy regarding the potential benefits of diverting ileostomy after low anterior resection (LAR). This study aims to examine the morbidity associated with diverting ileostomy in rectal cancer. A retrospective review of LAR cases was performed using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (2005 to 2011). Patients who underwent LAR with and without diversion were selected. Demographics, intraoperative events, and postoperative complications were reviewed. Among the 6337 cases sampled, 991 (16%) received a diverting ileostomy. Patients who were diverted were younger (60 vs 63 years), predominantly male (64 vs 53%), and more likely to have received pre-operative radiation (39 vs 12%). There was no significant difference in steroid use, weight loss, or intraoperative transfusion. Postoperatively, there was no significant difference in length of stay, rate of septic complications, wound infections, and mortality. The rate of reoperation was lower in the diverted group (4.5 vs 6.9%). Diversion was associated with a higher risk-adjusted rate of acute renal failure (OR 2.4; 95% CI (1.2, 4.6); P < 0.05). The use of diverting ileostomy reduces the rate of reoperation but is associated with an increased risk of acute renal insufficiency. These findings emphasize the need for refinement of patient selection and close follow-up to limit morbidity.

Diverting Stoma Versus No Diversion in Laparoscopic Low Anterior Resection: A Single-center Retrospective Study in Japan

BACKGROUND/AIM

The purpose of this retrospective study was to describe the benefits and risks of a diverting stoma (DS) in laparoscopic low anterior resection (LAR) for rectal cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 140 and 167 patients without and with DS, respectively, were included in this study in a high-volume cancer center of Japan within an 8-year period.

RESULTS

Small bowel obstruction occurred more frequently in patients with DS (2.86% vs. 16.17%, p<0.001). The difference in anastomotic leakage rate was not statistically significant (11.43% vs. 10.18%, p=0.72). In multivariate analysis, the operating time was associated with a higher rate of leakage in LAR [odds ratio (OR) 8.772, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.002-1.012, p=0.027].

CONCLUSION

Operating time was associated with a higher rate of leakage in LAR for low rectal cancer. A DS did not reduce anastomotic leakage but increased the risk of postoperative intestinal obstruction in laparoscopic LAR.

[Evidence-based ways of colorectal anastomotic complications prevention in the setting of digestive deep endometriosis resection: CNGOF-HAS Endometriosis Guidelines]

Management of deep pelvic and digestive endometriosis can lead to colorectal resection and anastomosis. Colorectal anastomosis carries risks for dreaded infectious and functional morbidity. The aim of the study was to establish, regarding the published data, the role of the three most common used surgical techniques to prevent such complications: pelvic drainage, diverting stoma, epiplooplasty. Even if many studies and articles have focused on colorectal anastomotic leakage prevention in rectal cancer surgery data regarding this topic in the setting of endometriosis where lacking. Due to major differences between the two situations, patients, diseases the use of the conclusions from the literature have to be taken with caution. In 4 randomized controlled trials the usefulness of systematic postoperative pelvic drainage hasn't been demonstrated. As this practice is not systematically recommended in cancer surgery, its interest is not demonstrated after colorectal resection for endometriosis. There is a heavy existing literature supporting systematic diverting stoma creation after low colorectal anastomosis for rectal cancer. Keeping in mind the important differences between the two situations, the conclusions cannot be directly extrapolated. In endometriosis surgery after low rectal resection, stoma creation must be discussed and the patient must be informed and educated about this possibility. Even if widely used there is no data supporting the role of epiplooplasty in colorectal anastomotic complication prevention? The place for epiplooplasty in preventing rectovaginal fistula occurrence in case of concomitant resection hasn't been studied.

Complications of Diverting Ileostomy after Low Anterior Resection for Rectal Carcinoma

There have been few studies directly comparing the postoperative complications in patients with a diverting ileostomy to patients who were not diverted after low anterior resection (LAR) for rectal carcinoma. This study is a retrospective chart review of all rectal carcinoma patients (99) who underwent a LAR from January 2009 to December 2014 at Loma Linda University Medical Center and Veterans Affairs Loma Linda Healthcare System. A majority of patients were diverted (58% vs 42%). The diverted patients were more likely to have a low tumor location ( P < 0.01), preoperative chemoradiation ( P < 0.01), and more intraoperative blood loss ( P < 0.01). Our study shows a statistically significant higher overall complication rate among patients receiving a diverting ileostomy in the six months after LAR (61% vs 38%, P = 0.02). The difference is due to a higher rate of readmission (27% vs 14%) and acute kidney injury (14% vs 5%) in patients with a diverting ileostomy. It also shows that there is a higher rate of unplanned reoperation (11% vs 6%) due to anastomotic leak (17% vs 5%) in nondiverted patients. Further studies are needed to refine the specific indications to maximize the benefit of diverting ileostomy after LAR for rectal carcinoma.

Prophylactic transanal decompression tube versus non-prophylactic transanal decompression tube for anastomotic leakage prevention in low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Transanal decompression tube (TDT), an alternative intervention believed to have potential equivalent efficacy in reducing anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer surgery and lower complication rates compared to protective stoma, was sporadically applied in some medical centers during recent decade. The objective of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the effect of the TDT in preventing the anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection for rectal cancer.

METHODS

The studies comparing TDT and non-TDT in rectal cancer were researched up to March 22, 2016 without language preference, in databases of PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane library, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and National Clinical Trials Registry. The rates of anastomotic leakage, bleeding, and re-operation were separately calculated and compared between TDT and non-TDT groups using RevMan 5.3. Funnel plots, and Egger's tests were used to evaluate the publication biases of the studies.

RESULTS

Two prospective randomized controlled trial studies and five observational cohort studies with 833 participants in TDT group and 939 participants in non-TDT group were finally included in this meta-analysis. The results indicated that the TDT group had lower anastomotic leakage rate than non-TDT group with significant RR (RR 0.44; 95 % CI 0.29-0.66; P < 0.0001) and heterogeneity (I ² = 33 %; P = 0.18). So did the re-operation rate, with RR (RR 0.16; 95 % CI 0.07-0.37; P < 0.0001) and heterogeneity among the studies (I ² = 0 %; P = 0.80). There was no significant difference in anastomotic bleeding rates (RR 1.48; 95 % CI 0.79-2.77; P = 0.22) (I ² = 58 %; P = 0.09). No publication bias was found by Egger's test (anastomotic leakage rate, Pr > |z| = 0.224; re-operation rate, Pr > |z| = 0.425).

CONCLUSIONS

TDT might be an efficient and economic intervention in preventing anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer surgery.

Preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative risk factors for anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic low anterior resection with double stapling technique anastomosis

Anastomotic leakage (AL) is one of the most devastating complications after rectal cancer surgery. The double stapling technique has greatly facilitated intestinal reconstruction especially for anastomosis after low anterior resection (LAR). Risk factor analyses for AL after open LAR have been widely reported. However, a few studies have analyzed the risk factors for AL after laparoscopic LAR. Laparoscopic rectal surgery provides an excellent operative field in a narrow pelvic space, and enables total mesorectal excision surgery and preservation of the autonomic nervous system with greater precision. However, rectal transection using a laparoscopic linear stapler is relatively difficult compared with open surgery because of the width and limited performance of the linear stapler. Moreover, laparoscopic LAR exhibits a different postoperative course compared with open LAR, which suggests that the risk factors for AL after laparoscopic LAR may also differ from those after open LAR. In this review, we will discuss the risk factors for AL after laparoscopic LAR.

Low or Ultralow Anterior Resection of Rectal Cancer Without Diverting Stoma: Experience with 28 Patients

A diverting temporary stoma is frequently used to decrease the chance of anastomosis leakage in the middle and lower rectum cancer surgeries, but its role in preventing the leakage is still doubtful. This study has been designed to evaluate any possible anastomosis complications after a rectum resection and a low or ultralow anastomosis when no diverting stoma is applied in patients with rectal cancer. Twenty-eight patients suffering from rectal cancer were treated by a low anterior resection between the years 2005 and 2008 in Imam Reza University Hospital, Mashhad, Iran. Out of the 28 patients, 6 patients had already undergone a course of neoadjuvant radiotherapy. Anastomosis was performed manually in 23 patients, using a stapler in 5 of them. None of the patients had a diverting stoma. Then, the outcome was evaluated. Fecal incontinence occurred in one of the patients (6.7 %) who had already undergone a course of radiotherapy preoperatively and had a stapler used for anastomosis. No leakage was detected in any of them. The very low incidence of complications in this study, such as those not preventable by a diverting stoma, suggest a very low chance of leakage in low or ultralow anastomosis in patients with rectal cancer and in those who were treated with neoadjuvant radiotherapy.

Colonic transit: what is the impact of a diverting loop ileostomy?

BACKGROUND

Diverting loop ileostomy (DLI) is used following low anterior resections (LAR) or ultra-low anterior resections (ULAR) to reduce anastomotic leak (AL). Preoperative mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) is traditionally used with DLI. However, clearance of the left colon can be achieved with a fleet enema without the physiological compromise of MBP. We aimed to assess colonic transit following DLI in this context.

METHODS

A prospective, observational study was performed with patients with rectal cancer undergoing LAR or ULAR in a tertiary colorectal unit with preoperative fleet enema. Radiopaque markers were inserted into the caecum following rectal resection and formation of a DLI with placement confirmed by image intensifier and endoscopy. X-rays were performed at days 1, 3, 5 and 14 post-operation with data collected prospectively.

RESULTS

Ten patients (mean age 57, nine males) were enrolled. Mean time to functioning stoma was 1.9 days (range 1-3). There was no movement in the majority of markers in all patients at Day 5 post-operation. In all seven patients with Day 14 X-rays, the majority of markers remained in the right colon. Two patients had delayed AL, with markers found within the pelvis in both of these patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study to assess colonic transit following DLI using fleet enema only, with results suggesting colonic motility is abolished in this setting. The use of a fleet enema without MBP may be sufficient prior to rectal resection surgery when DLI is employed. AL may actually increase colonic transit. Further research is warranted.

Clinical risk factors for anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic anterior resection for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic leakage (AL) is a serious complication in laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery, and risk factors for AL are not well defined. Herein, we conducted a systematic review to quantify the clinicopathologic factors predictive for AL in patients who underwent laparoscopic anterior resection (LAR) for rectal cancer.

METHODS

A systematic search of electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Scopus Database, and Wanfang Database) for studies published until August 2014 was performed. Cohort, case-control studies, and randomized controlled trials that examined clinical risk factors for AL were included.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies (seven prospective and seven retrospective studies) involving 4580 patients met final inclusion criteria. From the pooled analyses, five demographic factors were found to be significantly associated with the development of AL, including male gender (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.50-2.77), BMI ≥25 kg/m(2) (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.00-2.14), ASA score >2 (OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.04-2.93, P = 0.04), tumor size >5 cm (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.01-2.64, P = 0.05), and preoperative chemotherapy (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.10-2.55, P = 0.02). Four operative factors were significantly associated with increased risk of AL, including longer operative time (95% CI 1.71-5.77, P = 0.0002), number of stapler firings ≥3 (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.07-0.41, P < 0.001), intra-operative transfusions/blood loss >100 mL (OR 3.79, 95% CI 2.48-5.49, P < 0.001), and anastomosis level within 5 cm from the anal verge (OR 9.63, 95% CI 3.05-30.43, P = 0.0001), while pelvic drain (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.19-0.94, P = 0.04) was significantly associated with a lower AL rate.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis identified several clinicopathologic factors associated with AL in patients who underwent LAR. The knowledge of these risk factors may influence treatment- and procedure-related decisions and possibly reduce the leakage rate.

Optimal Treatment Strategy in Rectal Cancer Surgery: Should We Be Cowboys or Chickens?

Background and Purpose

Surgeons and hospitals are increasingly accountable for their postoperative complication rates, which may lead to risk adverse treatment strategies in rectal cancer surgery. It is not known whether a risk adverse strategy leads to providing better care. In this study, the association between the strategy of hospitals regarding defunctioning stoma construction and postoperative outcomes in rectal cancer treatment was evaluated.

Methods

Population-based data of the Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit, including 3,104 patients undergoing rectal cancer resection between January 2009 and July 2012 in 92 hospitals, were used. Hospital variation in (case-mix-adjusted) defunctioning stoma rates was calculated. Anastomotic leakage and 30-day mortality rates were compared in hospitals with a high and low tendency towards stoma construction.

Results

Of all patients, 76 % received a defunctioning stoma; 9.6 % of all patients developed anastomotic leakage. Overall postoperative mortality rate was 1.8 %. The hospitals’ adjusted proportion of defunctioning stomas varied from 0 to 100 %, and there was no significant correlation between the hospitals’ adjusted stoma and anastomotic leakage rate. Severe anastomotic leakage was similar (7.0 vs. 7.1 %; p = 0.95) in hospitals with the lowest and highest stoma rates. Mild leakage and postoperative mortality rates were higher in hospitals with high stoma rates.

Conclusions

A high tendency towards stoma construction in rectal cancer surgery did not result in lower overall anastomotic leakage or mortality rates. It seems that the ability to select patients for stoma construction is the key towards preferable outcomes, not a risk adverse strategy.

Meta-analysis of defunctioning stoma in low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: evidence based on thirteen studies

BACKGROUND

Recent studies have shown that a protective stoma can reduce morbidity in low anterior resection for rectal cancer; however, the necessity of it is still controversially discussed.

METHODS

We performed this meta-analysis to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the role of defunctioning stoma in low anterior resection for rectal cancer on the rates of anastomotic leakage and reoperation related to leakage with or without defunctioning stoma by calculating the pooled risk ratio.

RESULTS

Studies and relevant literature published between 2004 and 2014 regarding the construction of a protective stoma after low anterior resection were searched though PubMed and EMBASE databases. Finally, a total of 13 studies including 8,002 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The results indicated that protective stomas significantly reduced the rate of postoperative anastomotic leakage and reoperation after low anterior rectal resection. The pooled risk ratios were 0.47 (95% CI: 0.33-0.68, P <0.0001) and 0.36 (95% CI: 028-0.46, P <0.00001), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings from this present meta-analysis suggest that a defunctioning stoma could effectively reduce the clinical consequences of anastomotic leakage and reoperation, it is recommended in patients undergoing low rectal anterior resection for rectal cancer.

Hand suture versus stapler for closure of loop ileostomy--a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

The aims of this study are to compare the 30-day rate of bowel obstruction for stapled vs. handsewn closure of loop ileostomy, and to further assess efficacy and safety for each technique by secondary endpoints such as operative time, rates of anastomotic leakage, and other post-operative complications within 30 days.

METHODS

A systematic literature search (MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE and ISI Web of Science) was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing stapled and handsewn closure of loop ileostomy after low anterior resection. Random effects meta-analyses were calculated and presented as risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) with corresponding 95 % confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Forty publications were retrieved and 4 RCTs (649 patients) were included. There was methodological and clinical heterogeneity of included trials, but statistical heterogeneity was low for most endpoints. Stapler use significantly reduced the rate of bowel obstruction compared to hand-sewn closure (RR 0.53 [0.32, 0.88]; P = 0.01). The operation time was significantly lower for stapling compared to hand suture (MD -15.5 min [-18.4, 12.6]; P < 0.001). All other secondary outcomes did not show significant differences.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis shows superiority of stapled closure of loop ileostomy compared to handsewn closure in terms of bowel obstruction rate and mean operation time. Other relevant complications such as anastomotic leakage are equivalent. Even so, both techniques are options with opposing advantages and disadvantages.

Role of protective stoma in low anterior resection for rectal cancer: A meta-analysis

AIM: To provide a comprehensive evaluation of the role of a protective stoma in low anterior resection (LAR) for rectal cancer.

METHODS: The PubMed, EMBASE, and MEDLINE databases were searched for studies and relevant literature published between 2007 and 2014 regarding the construction of a protective stoma during LAR. A pooled risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was used to assess the outcomes of the studies, including the rate of postoperative anastomotic leakage and reoperations related to leakage. Funnel plots and Egger’s tests were used to evaluate the publication biases of the studies. P values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

RESULTS: A total of 11 studies were included in the meta-analysis. In total, 5612 patients were examined, 2868 of whom had a protective stoma and 2744 of whom did not. The sample size of the studies varied from 34 to 1912 patients. All studies reported the number of patients who developed an anastomotic leakage and required a reoperation related to leakage. A random effects model was used to calculate the pooled RR with the corresponding 95%CI because obvious heterogeneity was observed among the 11 studies (I² = 77%). The results indicated that the creation of a protective stoma during LAR significantly reduces the rate of anastomotic leakage and the number of reoperations related to leakage, with pooled RRs of 0.38 (95%CI: 0.30-0.48, P < 0.00001) and 0.37 (95%CI: 0.29-0.48, P < 0.00001), respectively. The shape of the funnel plot did not reveal any evidence of obvious asymmetry.

CONCLUSION: The presence of a protective stoma effectively decreased the incidences of anastomotic leakage and reoperation and is recommended in patients undergoing low rectal anterior resections for rectal cancer.

Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic low anterior resection with DST anastomosis

Background

Laparoscopic rectal surgery involving rectal transection and anastomosis with stapling devices is technically difficult. The aim of this study was to evaluate the risk factors for anastomotic leakage (AL) after laparoscopic low anterior resection (LAR) with double-stapling technique (DST) anastomosis.

Methods

This was a retrospective single-institution study of 154 rectal cancer patients who underwent laparoscopic LAR with DST anastomosis between June 2005 and August 2013. Patient-, tumor-, and surgery-related variables were examined by univariate and multivariate analyses. The outcome of interest was clinical AL.

Results

The overall AL rate was 12.3 % (19/154). In univariate analysis, tumor size (P = 0.001), operative time (P = 0.049), intraoperative bleeding (P = 0.037), lateral lymph node dissection (P = 0.009), multiple firings of the linear stapler (P = 0.041), and precompression before stapler firings (P = 0.008) were significantly associated with AL. Multivariate analysis identified tumor size (odds ratio [OR] 4.01; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.25–12.89; P = 0.02) and precompression before stapler firings (OR 4.58; CI 1.22–17.20; P = 0.024) as independent risk factors for AL. In particular, precompression before stapler firing tended to reduce the AL occurring in early postoperative period.

Conclusions

Using appropriate techniques, laparoscopic LAR with DST anastomosis can be performed safely without increasing the risk of AL. Important risk factors for AL were tumor size and precompression before stapler firings.

High 1-year complication rate after anterior resection for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Surgical options after anterior resection for rectal cancer include a primary anastomosis, anastomosis with a defunctioning stoma, and an end colostomy. This study describes short-term and 1-year outcomes of these different surgical strategies.

METHODS

Patients undergoing surgical resection for primary mid and high rectal cancer were retrospectively studied in seven Dutch hospitals with 1-year follow-up. Short-term endpoints were postoperative complications, re-interventions, prolonged hospital stay, and mortality. One-year endpoints were unplanned readmissions and re-interventions, presence of stoma, and mortality.

RESULTS

Nineteen percent of 388 included patients received a primary anastomosis, 55% an anastomosis with defunctioning stoma, and 27% an end colostomy. Short-term anastomotic leakage was 10% in patients with a primary anastomosis vs. 7% with a defunctioning stoma (P = 0.46). An end colostomy was associated with less severe re-interventions. One-year outcomes showed low morbidity and mortality rates in patients with an anastomosis. Patients with a defunctioning stoma had high (18%) readmissions and re-intervention (12%) rates, mostly due to anastomotic leakage. An end colostomy was associated with unplanned re-interventions due to stoma/abscess problems. During follow-up, there was a 30% increase in patients with an end colostomy.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed a high 1-year morbidity rate after anterior resection for rectal cancer. A defunctioning stoma was associated with a high risk for late complications including anastomotic leakage. An end colostomy is a safe alternative to prevent anastomotic leakage, but stomal problems cannot be ignored. Selecting low-risk patients for an anastomosis may lead to favorable short- and 1-year outcomes.

A scoring system to predict the risk of anastomotic leakage after anterior resection for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Various risk factors for anastomotic leakage after anterior resection for rectal cancer have been documented in previous studies. However, there have been no quantized studies to more accurately predict the risk of anastomotic leakage.

METHODS

A total of 1,060 patients with rectal cancer who underwent anterior resection were included in the study. Potential risk factors for leakage including gender, age, body mass index (BMI), diabetes, preoperative radiotherapy, tumor size, level of anastomosis, intraoperative blood loss, concomitant resection of other organs and TNM stage were subjected to univariate analysis. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify the independent risk factors for anastomotic leakage. The scoring system was developed based on regression coefficient for each significant risk factor.

RESULTS

Independent risk factors included male gender, low level of anastomosis from anal verge and high-volume intraoperative blood loss. These patients were separated into high risk, intermediate risk and low risk groups based on scores of 4-5, 2-3, and 0-1. The leakage rates of the three groups were 16.1%, 8.0%, and 1.9%, respectively (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The scoring system is effective and accurate for identifying a subgroup of patients at high risk for leakage.

Systematic review of anastomotic leakage rate according to an international grading system following anterior resection for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

A generally acceptable definition and a severity grading system for anastomotic leakages (ALs) following rectal resection were not available until 2010, when the International Study Group of Rectal Cancer (ISGRC) proposed a definition and a grading system for AL.

METHODS

A search for published data was performed using the MEDLINE database (2000 to December 5, 2012) to perform a systematic review of the studies that described AL, grade AL according to the grading system, pool data, and determine the average rate of AL for each grade after anterior resection (AR) for rectal cancer.

RESULTS

A total of 930 abstracts were retrieved; 40 articles on AR, 25 articles on low AR (LAR), and 5 articles on ultralow AR (ULAR) were included in the review and analysis. The pooled overall AL rate of AR was 8.58% (2,085/24,288); the rate of the asymptomatic leakage (Grade A) was 2.57%, that of AL that required active intervention without relaparotomy (Grade B) was 2.37%, and that of AL that required relaparotomy (Grade C) was 5.40%. The pooled rate of AL that required relaparotomy was higher in AR (5.40%) than in LAR (4.70%) and in ULAR (1.81%), which could be attributed to the higher rate of protective defunctioning stoma in LAR (40.72%) and ULAR (63.44%) compared with that in AR (30.11%).

CONCLUSIONS

The new grading system is simple that the ALs of each grade can be easily extracted from past publications, therefore likely to be accepted and applied in future studies.

Anastomotic leak after restorative proctosigmoidectomy for cancer: what are the chances of a permanent ostomy?

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to identify rates and factors associated with permanent diversion following restorative proctosigmoidectomy for rectal cancer when complicated by an anastomotic leak.

DESIGN

This study is a retrospective review.

SETTING

The setting of this study is a tertiary referral hospital

PATIENTS

Patients involved in this study were those who underwent restorative rectal cancer surgery from 1997 through 2008 identified from an institutional cancer database.

INTERVENTIONS

No interventions were performed in this study.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Factors associated with time to ostomy closure and rates of permanent diversion following anastomotic leaks

RESULTS

One hundred and thirty patients (mean age 59.7 years) were identified, 111 (85%) of whom had stoma diversion at the index surgery. Asymptomatic occult radiological leaks occurred in 52 patients (40%). Seventy-eight patients (60%) underwent ultimate ostomy closure at a median time of 6.3 months after the index surgery, which was not significantly affected by previous radiotherapy (p = 0.08). Twelve patients (9%) underwent anastomotic reconstruction. Pathologic stage II or greater (OR 4.42; 1.95-10.04), symptomatic presentation (OR 4.13; 1.86-9.19) and anastomotic disruption >5 mm (OR 4.42; 2.01-9.74) were independently associated with permanent diversion. Among all survivors, 33% did not have their ostomy reversed. Stoma diversion constructed after leak detection in 19 patients (15%) did not affect permanent stoma rate (OR 0.86; 0.31-2.34) or time to stoma closure (p = 0.29).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of anastomotic leaks after restorative rectal cancer surgery can be salvaged without anastomotic reconstruction. However, in one third of the patients, an anastomotic leak results in a permanent stoma.

Meta-analysis of the risk for anastomotic leakage, the postoperative mortality caused by leakage in relation to the overall postoperative mortality

BACKGROUND

Availability of anastomotic leakage rates and mortality rates following anastomotic leakage is essential when informing patients with rectal cancer preoperatively. We performed a meta-analysis of studies describing anastomotic leakage and the subsequent postoperative mortality in relation to the overall postoperative mortality after low anterior resection for rectal cancer.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed of the published literature. Data on the definition and incidence rate of AL, postoperative mortality caused by AL, and overall postoperative mortality were extracted. Data were pooled and a meta-analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies with 10,343 patients in total were analyzed. Meta-analysis of the data showed an average AL rate of 9%, postoperative mortality caused by leakage of 0.7% and overall postoperative mortality of 2%. The studies showed variation in incidence, definition and measurement of all outcomes.

CONCLUSION

We found a considerable overall AL rate and a large contribution of AL to the overall postoperative mortality. The variability of definitions and measurement of AL, postoperative mortality caused by leakage and overall postoperative mortality may hinder providing reliable risk information. Large-scale audit programs may provide accurate and valid risk information which can be used for preoperative decision making.

Protective stomy as a complement to anterior rectal resection. Analysis of authors' material and literature review

Anastomotic leak after anterior rectal resection for cancer is one of the most dangerous complications of the procedure. Protective stomy is a way to avoid life-threatening consequences of this complication. The procedure is still under evaluation.The aim of the study was to evaluate the usefulness of forming a protective stomy as part of anterior rectal cancer resection on the basis of an analysis of the authors' material.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In 2008 - 2009, we treated 111 patients with rectal cancer. Thirty-two of those patients received preoperative radio(chemo)therapy. Eighty-four patients (76%) underwent resection of the primary tumour. In 20 patients (24%), we performed abdominoperineal or abdominosacral resection; in 6 (7%) cases the Hartmann procedure was used and in 58 (69%) cases anterior rectal resection was performed. In 53 of 58 cases, the resections were assessed as curative and in 5 as palliative. In 18 of 58 (31%) patients, anterior resections were defined as low anterior resections. Twelve (67%) of these patients were subjected to preoperative radio(chemo)therapy. Two of 58 patients, who underwent anterior resection, had been treated by stomy creation before the radical procedure. One of them required neoadjuvant radiotherapy. In the second patient with the stomy, we restored the intestinal continuity during the primary tumour resection. Among the remaining 40 patients, only one underwent protective stomy creation during the resective procedure. This patient did not require preoperative radiotherapy.

RESULTS

We have not found any clinical indications of anastomotic leak in the analysed group of 58 patients subjected to anterior rectal resection for cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Our modest experience reaffirms our conviction that anterior rectal cancer resection does not require routine protective stomy creation, also when low anterior resection follows preoperative radiotherapy.

Can transanal tube placement after anterior resection for rectal carcinoma reduce anastomotic leakage rate? A single-institution prospective randomized study

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic leakage is the most significant complication after low anterior resection (LAR) for rectal carcinoma, and it is the major cause of postoperative mortality and morbidity. The objective of the present study was to investigate whether the use of a transanal tube as an alternative endoluminal diversion technique for rectal carcinoma can reduce the 30-day leakage rate after LAR.

METHODS

From June 2003 to December 2009, a total of 398 patients were randomized to a transanal tube or not after LAR. Inclusion criteria for randomization were biopsy-proven carcinoma of the rectum located ≤15 cm above the anal verge, measured with a rigid rectoscope; age≥18 years; informed consent; ability to understand the study information; estimated survival of >6 months; anterior resection for the lesion; final negative air leakage test; intact anastomotic stapler rings; and the absence of major intraoperative adverse events.

RESULTS

Patient demographics, tumor size and location, Duke's stage, preoperative co-morbidity, and operative details were comparable between the two groups in general analysis and subgroup analysis (double-staple technique and handsewn technique). The overall rate of symptomatic leakage was 6.78% (27 of 398 patients). Patients randomized to a transanal tube (n=200) had leakage in 4.0% (8 of 200 patients) and those without a tube (n=198) in 9.6% (19 of 198 patients) (p=0.026). With regard to the double-staple technique subgroup, 3.7% (7 of 188) patients with a tube presented with a symptomatic anastomotic leakage, compared with 9.3% (17 of 182) of those without a tube (p=0.028). Of the patients with anastomotic leakage in the double-staple technique subgroup, the need for urgent abdominal reoperation was 28.6% (two of seven patients) in those randomized to a transanal tube and 82.4% (14 of 17) in those without (p=0.021). The 30-day mortality after LAR was nil. In the double-staple technique subgroup, a quicker resumption of gastrointestinal motility manifested by a smaller ratio of patients with flatus>postoperative day (POD) 3 (p=0.019) and a smaller ratio of poor gastrointestinal electromyogram on POD 3 (p<0.001) was associated with use of a transanal tube. Additionally, patients with a tube appeared to have a lower rectal resting pressure by POD 3 (4.0±2.2 vs. 5.0±2.2 kPa; p<0.001) or POD 5 (4.3±2.3 vs. 5.6±2.3 kPa; p<0.001), compared to the resting pressures patients without the device, respectively. A shorter length of hospital stay was associated with use of a transanal tube both in the double-staple technique subgroup (p<0.001) and the handsewn technique subgroup (p=0.011). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that body mass index>25 kg/m2 and a poor gastrointestinal electromyogram on POD 3 were found to be independent risk factors for anastomotic leakage in the low anastomosis subgroup.

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of a transanal tube is effective and safe in decreasing the rate of clinically significant anastomotic leaks and in mitigating the clinical consequences of leakage after anterior resection for rectal cancer with the technique of total mesorectal excision and double-staple anastomosis. The potential benefits of transanal tube placement are multifactorial, including drainage, reduction of endoluminal pressure, and promotion of gastrointestinal motility. Obesity and poor gastrointestinal electromyogram on POD 3 are independent risk factors for anastomotic leakage in patients with low anastomosis.

Ghost ileostomy after anterior resection for rectal cancer: a preliminary experience

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to describe and evaluate the feasibility and the eventual advantages of ghost ileostomy (GI) versus covering stoma (CS) in terms of complications, hospital stay and quality of life of patients and their caregivers after anterior resection for rectal cancer.

METHODS

In this prospective study, we included patients who had rectal cancer treated with laparotomic anterior resection and confectioning a stoma (GI or CS), in the period comprised between January 2008 and January 2009. Short-term and long-term surgery-related mortality and morbidity after primary surgery (including that stoma-related and colorectal anastomosis-related) and consequent to the intervention of intestinal recanalization (CS group) and GI closure were evaluated. We evaluated hospital stay and quality of life of patients and their caregivers.

RESULTS

Stoma-related morbidity rate was higher in the CS group than in GI group (37% vs. 5.5%, respectively, P = 0.04). Morbidity rate after intestinal recanalization in the CS group was 25.9% and 0% after GI closure (P = 0.08). Overall stoma morbidity rate was significantly lower in the GI group with respect to CS group (5.5% vs. 40.7%, respectively, P = 0.03). CS group was characterized by a significantly longer recovery time (P = 0.0002). Caregivers and stoma-related quality of life were better in the GI group than in CS group (P < 0.0001 and P = 0.0005, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

GI is feasible, characterized by shorter recovery, lesser degree of total, as well as anastomosis-related morbidity and higher quality of life of patients and the caregivers in respect to CS. We suggest that GI (should be evaluated as an alternative to conventional ileostomy) could be indicated in selected patients that do not present risk factors, but require caution for anastomotic leakage for the low level of colorectal anastomosis.

Permanent stoma after low anterior resection for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

A low anterior resection procedure for removing a rectal tumor aims to preserve the sphincter and avoid a permanent stoma. Permanent stomas are primarily necessary in cases of poor anorectal function and local recurrence. The aim of this study was to clarify whether anastomosis-related complications and local recurrence influenced the rate of permanent stomas in a long-term follow-up.

METHODS

Of 1032 consecutive patients with rectal cancer, 397 were treated by low anterior resection (R0 and R1 resections) between 1985 and 2007 at the Department of General and Abdominal Surgery of the University Hospital, Mainz (Germany). All patient data were collected prospectively. A retrospective, multivariate analysis was conducted to determine factors that influenced the occurrence of delayed and nonreversal of defunctioning stoma, the rate of repeat stoma after closure, and the need for a permanent stoma in patients whose stomas were not initially defunctioning.

RESULTS

A defunctioning stoma was created in 292 of 397 patients (74%); 12% of stomas were not reversible (33/279 that survived the operation >90 d); 11% (28/246) required a repeat stoma after stoma closure; 10% (10/105) of patients whose stomas were not initially defunctioning received a late permanent stoma. The overall rate of a permanent stoma was 18%. The main reasons for a permanent stoma were anastomosis-related complications and local recurrence. Risk factors for anastomosis-related complication were male gender, low tumor site, and tumor stage. Despite a significant reduction in local recurrence rates from 1997 to 2007, the rate of creating a permanent stoma did not change.

CONCLUSIONS

The possibility of a permanent stoma should be considered when planning surgery for treating rectal cancer. It might be preferable in older patients, in poor condition and with more advanced rectal cancers, to consider an abdominoperineal resection or Hartmann procedure instead of a low anterior resection.

[Protective stoma after deep anterior rectal resection: pro]

There is still controversy about the necessity of a diverting stoma after deep anterior resection with total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Recent results of randomized controlled trials and from systematic reviews have improved the currently available data. A significant benefit was shown for patients with diverting stoma in terms of clinically relevant anastomotic leakage and re-operation rates. The influence on mortality is not as clear. However, analysis of the data of 19 prospective studies within a systematic review including more than 9,000 patients, revealed a significant benefit for stoma creation. Furthermore, the rate of patients with stoma 5 years after primary resection was lower in the group of patients with diverting stoma. The purpose of this manuscript is to show the necessity of a diverting stoma based on the currently available data.

Covering ileo- or colostomy in anterior resection for rectal carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic leakage is one of the most important complications that occur after surgical low anterior resection for rectal cancer. There are indications that anastomotic leak is associated with increased morbidity, mortality, frequent re-operation or radiological drainage, and prolonged hospital stay. Defunctioning stoma can be useful for patients undergoing a rectal surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of protective defunctioning stoma in low anterior resection for rectal carcinoma.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Searches were conducted November 2009. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 1966) and EMBASE (from 1980).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials comparing the use of stoma versus "no stoma" in patients that received low anterior resection for rectal cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Six randomised controlled trials were identified and included in this review. Five trials were fully published in peer-reviewed journals. An attempt was made to obtain further information from the authors of the trial that was available only in an abstract form. The studies analysed the following outcomes: clinical anastomotic leakage, urgent reoperation, mortality and length of postoperative hospital stay. Review authors extracted the data independently, the risk ratios (RR) were estimated for the dichotomous outcomes and standardised mean difference were estimated for the continuous outcome

MAIN RESULTS

All the trials reported results for clinical anastomotic leakage, urgent reoperation and mortality. Only two trials reported the results for length of postoperative hospital stay.With respect to controls, use of covering stoma was significantly associated with less anastomotic leakage (RR 0.33; 95%CI [0.21, 0.53]) and less urgent reoperation (RR 0.23; 95%CI [0.12, 0.42] ). There was no significant difference in terms of mortality (RR 0.58; 95%CI [0.14, 2.33]). There was no evidence of statistical heterogeneity in any of the comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Covering stoma seems to be useful to prevent anastomotic leakage and urgent re-operations in patients receiving low anterior resection for rectal cancer. However, covering stoma does not seems to offer advantage in term of 30 days or long term mortality.

ETVARD (endoscopic transanal vacuum-assisted rectal drainage) leads to complete but delayed closure of extraperitoneal rectal anastomotic leakage cavities following neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy

PURPOSE

The purpose of the study was to prospectively assess the impact of neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy on the formation of major anastomotic rectal leaks and treatment by endoscopic transanal vacuum-assisted rectal drainage (ETVARD).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty six patients with malignancies with rectal anastomotic leaks were prospectively treated, including 14 of 26 patients following neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy. ETVARD was the first-line treatment.

RESULTS

In 23 of 26 patients, ETVARD was successfully completed. In patients following neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy sizes of leakage cavities, duration of ETVARD, number of sponge exchanges, and endoscopies as well as time to closure of cavities were significantly increased (0.009 < p < 0.035) compared to patients after primary surgery. Increased age showed similar correlations, whereas the level of anastomoses did not influence these parameters. Patients without (ile)ostomies could also be treated by ETVARD. Follow-up endoscopies have not shown any major changes.

CONCLUSIONS

Radiochemotherapy has a significant impact on development and treatment of major anastomotic rectal leaks. Most patients can be successfully treated by ETVARD, avoiding additional resective surgery or permanent (col)ostomies.

Meta-analysis of defunctioning stomas in low anterior resection for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

A defunctioning stoma is frequently created to minimize the impact of any subsequent anastomotic leak after a low rectal anastomosis. This review evaluates the need for routine stoma formation.

METHODS

A meta-analysis was performed of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies with an interventional group evaluating the need for a defunctioning stoma after low anterior resection for rectal cancer. Primary outcomes analysed included clinical anastomotic leak rate, reoperation rate and mortality related to leak.

RESULTS

Four RCTs and 21 non-randomized studies, with 11,429 patients in total, were analysed. Meta-analysis of the RCTs showed a lower clinical anastomotic leak rate (risk ratio (RR) 0.39 (95 per cent c.i. 0.23 to 0.66); P < 0.001) and a lower reoperation rate (RR 0.29 (0.16 to 0.53); P < 0.001) in the stoma group. Meta-analysis of the non-randomized studies showed a lower clinical anastomotic leak rate (RR 0.74 (0.67 to 0.83); P < 0.001), lower reoperation rate (RR 0.28 (0.23 to 0.35); P < 0.001) and lower mortality rate (RR 0.42 (0.28 to 0.61); P < 0.001) in the stoma group.

CONCLUSION

A defunctioning stoma decreases clinical anastomotic leak rate and reoperation rate. It is recommended after low anterior resection for rectal cancer.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the role of defunctioning stoma in low rectal cancer surgery

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

The role of a defunctioning stoma in patients undergoing low anterior resection for rectal cancer is still the subject of controversy. Recent studies suggest reduced morbidity after low anterior rectal resection with a defunctioning stoma.

METHODS

Retrospective and prospective studies published between 1966 and 2007 were systematically reviewed. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing anterior resections with or without defunctioning stoma were included in a meta-analysis. The pooled estimates of clinically relevant anastomotic leakages and of reoperations were analyzed using a random effects model (odds ratio and 95% confidence interval, CI).

RESULTS

Relevant retrospective single (n = 18) and multicenter (n = 9) studies were identified and included in the systematic review. Analysis of incoherent data of the leakage rates in these nonrandomized studies demonstrated that a defunctioning stoma did not influence the occurrence of anastomotic failure but seemed to ameliorate the consequences of the leak. Four RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. The odds ratio for clinically relevant anastomotic leakage was 0.32 (95% CI 0.17-0.59), revealing a statistically significant benefit conferred through a defunctioning stoma (Z = 3.65, P = 0.0003). The odds ratio for reoperation because of leakage-caused complications was 0.27 (95% CI 0.14-0.51), with significantly fewer reoperations in patients with a defunctioning stoma (Z = 3.95, P < 0.0001). Overall mortality rates were comparable regardless of the presence of a defunctioning stoma.

CONCLUSION

A defunctioning stoma reduces the rate of clinically relevant anastomotic leakages and is thus recommended in surgery for low rectal cancers.