Intra-operative double-stapled colorectal or coloanal anastomotic complications of laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer: double-stapled anastomotic complication could result in persistent anastomotic leakage

Efficacy of air leak test in detection of anastomotic leaks after rectal excision: a retrospective case-controlled study

Purpose

Although its efficacy is uncertain, an intraoperative air leak test (ALT) is commonly used to detect mechanical defects following bowel anastomosis. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of ALT to detect anastomotic leakage (AL) following rectal excision.

Methods

We reviewed our database for patients with rectal cancers who had undergone curative surgery between January 2012 and January 2018. Patients were grouped according to whether or not an ALT was performed. Propensity score analyses were performed to compare outcomes for groups in a 1:1 case-matched cohort.

Results

In total, 1,191 patients underwent rectal excision; 438 (219 in each group) formed the case-matched cohort for analysis. The protective stoma rate was 16.0% and 14.6% in the ALT and the no-ALT groups, respectively (P = 0.791). In the ALT group, 2 patients (0.9%) showed a positive result and were treated with rectal tube drainage, resulting in no leakage. There was no significant difference in postoperative AL rate between the groups (ALT group: 4.6% vs. no-ALT group: 4.1%, P > 0.999).

Conclusion

ALT played a minimal role in detecting AL following rectal excision. Further studies are warranted to validate our results and clarify whether AL can be prevented with ALT or alternative methods.

Laparoscopic versus robotic inguinal hernia repair: a single-center case-matched study

INTRODUCTION

Robotic inguinal hernia repair (RIHR) is becoming increasingly common and is the minimally invasive alternative to laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (LIHR). Thus far, there is little data directly comparing LIHR and RIHR. The purpose of this study will be to compare outcomes for LIHR and RIHR at a single center.

METHODS

A prospective institutional hernia database was queried for patients who underwent transabdominal LIHR or RIHR from 2012 to 2020. The patients were then matched based on the surgeon performing the operation (single, expert hernia surgeon) and laterality of repair. Standard descriptive statistics were used.

RESULTS

There were 282 patients who met criteria for the study, 141 LIHR and 141 RIHR; 32.6% of patients in each group had a bilateral repair (p = 1.00). LIHR patients were slightly younger (54.4 ± 15.6 vs 58.6 ± 13.8; p = 0.03) but similar in terms of BMI (27.1 ± 5.1 vs 29.1 ± 2.1; p = 0.70) and number of comorbidities (2.9 ± 2.5 vs 2.6 ± 2.2; p = 0.59). Operative time was found to be longer in the RIHR group, but when evaluating RIHR at the beginning of the study versus the end of the study, there was a 50-min decrease in operative time (p < 0.01). Recurrence rates were low for both groups (0.7% vs 1.4%; p = 0.38) with mean follow-up time 13.0 ± 13.3 months. There was only one wound infection, which was in the robotic group. No patients required return to the operating room for complications relating to their surgery. There were no 30-day readmissions in the LIHR group and three 30-day readmissions in the RIHR group (p = 0.28).

CONCLUSION

LIHR and RIHR are both performed with low morbidity and have comparable overall outcomes. The total charges were increased in the RIHR group. Either LIHR or RIHR may be considered when performing inguinal hernia repair and should depend on surgeon and patient preference; continued evaluation of the outcomes is warranted.

Mucosa plication reinforced colorectal anastomosis and trans-anal vacuum drainage: a pilot study with preliminary results

Dehiscence of colorectal anastomosis is a serious complication that is associated with increased mortality, impaired functional and oncological outcomes. The hypothesis was that anastomosis reinforcement and vacuum trans-anal drainage could eliminate some risk factors, such as mechanically stapled anastomosis instability and local infection. Patients with rectal cancer within 10 cm of the anal verge and low anterior resection with double-stapled technique were included consecutively. A stapler anastomosis was supplemented by trans-anal reinforcement and vacuum drainage using a povidone-iodine-soaked sponge. Modified reinforcement using a circular mucosa plication was developed and used. Patients were followed up by postoperative endoscopy and outcomes were acute leak rate, morbidity, and diversion rate. The procedure was successfully completed in 52 from 54 patients during time period January 2019–October 2020. The mean age of patients was 61 years (lower–upper quartiles 54–69 years). There were 38/52 (73%) males and 14/52 (27%) females; the neoadjuvant radiotherapy was indicated in a group of patients in 24/52 (46%). The mean level of anastomosis was 3.8 cm (lower–upper quartiles 3.00–4.88 cm). The overall morbidity was 32.6% (17/52) and Clavien–Dindo complications ≥ 3 grade appeared in 3/52 (5.7%) patients. No loss of anastomosis was recorded and no patient died postoperatively. The symptomatic anastomotic leak was recorded in 2 (3.8%) patients and asymptomatic blind fistula was recorded in one patient 1/52 (1.9%). Diversion ileostomy was created in 1/52 patient (1.9%). Reinforcement of double-stapled anastomosis using a circular mucosa plication with combination of vacuum povidone-iodine-soaked sponge drainage led to a low acute leak and diversion rate. This pilot study requires further investigation.

Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov.: Trial registration number is NCT04735107, date of registration February 2, 2021, registered retrospectively.

Prediction of anastomotic leakage after anterior rectal resection

OBJECTIVE

Anastomotic Leakage (AL) is one of the most common complications after resection of rectal cancer. Recognition of the incidence and risk factors related to AL is important. This study aimed develops a model that can predict anastomotic leakage after anterior rectal resection.

METHODS

Data from 188 patients undergoing anterior resection of rectal cancer were collected for retrospective analysis. Patients were randomly divided in the development set and validation set at a 1:1 ratio. We first included age, sex, preoperative chemoradiotherapy, tumor size, degree of tumor differentiation, stage, TNM stage, lymph vascular invasion, distance, anastomotic method, diabetes, intraoperative time, intraoperative bleeding and smoking as candidates for variable selection with a LASSO method. A ROC curve was constructed with the validation set to assess the accuracy of the prediction model.

RESULTS

AL occurred in 20 of 188 patients (10.6%). Preoperative chemoradiotherapy (p=0.04), medium degree of tumor differentiation (p=0.04), anastomotic method (p<0.01), intraoperative bleeding≥400ml (p<0.01), smoking (p<0.01), diabetes (p<0.01) were significantly related to AL. The area under the ROC curve of the prediction model is 0.952.

CONCLUSIONS

This study developed a model that can predict anastomotic leakage after anterior rectal resection, which may aid the selection of preventive ileostomy and postoperative management.

Is the intraoperative air leak test effective in the prevention of colorectal anastomotic leakage? A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The intra-operative air leak test (ALT) is a common intraoperative test used to identify mechanically insufficient anastomosis. This meta-analysis aims to determine whether ALT aids to the reduction of postoperative colorectal anastomotic leakage (CAL).

METHODS

A literature search was performed to select studies in acknowledged databases. Full text articles targeting ALT during colorectal surgery were included. Quality assessment, risk of bias, and the level-of-evidence of the inclusions were evaluated. ALT methodology, ALT(+) (i.e., leak observed during the test) rate, and postoperative CAL rate of the included studies were subsequently analyzed.

RESULTS

Twenty studies were included for analysis, in which we found substantial risks of bias. A lower CAL rate was observed in patients who underwent ALT than those did not; however, the difference was not significant (p = 0.15). The intraoperative ALT(+) rate greatly varied among the included studies from 1.5 to 24.7 %. ALT(+) patients possessed a significantly higher CAL rate than the ALT(-) patients (11.4 vs. 4.2 %, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the available evidence, performing an ALT with the reported methodology has not significantly reduced the clinical CAL rate but remains necessary due to a higher risk of CAL in ALT(+) cases. Unfortunately, additional repairs under current methods may not effectively decrease this risk. Results of this review urge a standardization of ALT methodology and effective methods to repair ALT(+) anastomoses.

Comparison of symptomatic anastomotic leakage following laparoscopic and open low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a propensity score matching analysis of 1014 consecutive patients

BACKGROUND

This observational study was conducted to compare the rate of symptomatic anastomotic leakage (AL), as defined by precise criteria, between laparoscopic and open surgery in patients with mid-to-low rectal cancer using a relatively novel statistical technique.

METHODS

A total of 1014 consecutive low anterior resection (LAR) patients were registered, of whom 936 were included in this prospective, multicenter, and cohort study (UMIN-CTR, Number 000004017). Patients with rectal cancer within 10 cm from the anal verge underwent either open or laparoscopic LAR at one of the 40 institutions in Japan from June 2010 to February 2013. The primary endpoint of this study was to compare the rate of symptomatic AL between the two groups before and after propensity score matching (PSM). The secondary endpoint was to analyze the risk factors for symptomatic AL in open and laparoscopic surgery.

RESULTS

After PSM, the incidence of symptomatic AL in open and laparoscopic surgery was 12.4 and 15.3 %, respectively (p = 0.48). AL requiring relaparotomy occurred after 3.8 % of open surgeries and 6.2 % of laparoscopic surgeries (p = 0.37). Multivariate analysis identified male gender as an independent risk factor for symptomatic AL following laparoscopic surgery (p = 0.001; odds ratio 5.2; 95 % CI 2.0-13.8), and male gender (p = 0.004; odds ratio 2.6; 95 % CI 1.3-5.6), tumor size (p = 0.002; odds ratio 1.2; 95 % CI 0.7-0.9), and number of stapler firing (p = 0.04; odds ratio 4.1; 95 % CI 1.0-15.0) following open surgery.

CONCLUSION

The rate of symptomatic AL was comparable following laparoscopic and open LAR in this large, multicenter, cohort study after PSM. Male gender was associated with an increased risk of symptomatic AL after laparoscopic LAR.