Role of transanal drainage tubes in preventing anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Updated evidence of the effectiveness and safety of transanal drainage tube for the prevention of anastomotic leakage after rectal low anterior resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUNDS

Anastomotic leakage (AL) represents a major complication after rectal low anterior resection (LAR). Transanal drainage tube (TDT) placement offers a potential strategy for AL prevention; however, its efficacy and safety remain contentious.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis were used to evaluate the influence of TDT subsequent to LAR as part of the revision of the surgical site infection prevention guidelines of the Japanese Society of Surgical Infectious Diseases (PROSPERO registration; CRD42023476655). We searched each database, and included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (OBSs) comparing TDT and non-TDT outcomes. The main outcome was AL. Data were independently extracted by three authors and random-effects models were implemented.

RESULTS

A total of three RCTs and 18 OBSs were included. RCTs reported no significant difference in AL rate between the TDT and non-TDT groups [relative risk (RR): 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42-1.15]. OBSs reported that TDT reduced AL risk [odds ratio (OR): 0.45, 95% CI 0.31-0.64]. In the subgroup excluding diverting stoma (DS), TDT significantly lowered the AL rate in RCTs (RR: 0.57, 95% CI 0.33-0.99) and OBSs (OR: 0.41, 95% CI 0.27-0.62). Reoperation rates were significantly lower in the TDT without DS groups in both RCTs (RR: 0.26, 95% CI 0.07-0.94) and OBSs (OR: 0.40, 95% CI 0.24-0.66). TDT groups exhibited a higher anastomotic bleeding rate only in RCTs (RR: 4.28, 95% CI 2.14-8.54), while shorter hospital stays were observed in RCTs [standard mean difference (SMD): -0.44, 95% CI -0.65 to -0.23] and OBSs (SMD: -0.54, 95% CI -0.97 to -0.11) compared with the non-TDT group.

CONCLUSIONS

A universal TDT placement cannot be recommended for all rectal LAR patients. Some patients may benefit from TDT, such as patients without DS creation. Further investigation is necessary to identify the specific beneficiaries.

Does transanal drainage tubes placement have an impact on the incidence of anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer surgery? a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Whether Transanal drainage tubes (TDTs) placement reduces the occurrence of anastomotic leakage (AL) after rectal cancer (RC) surgery remains controversial. Most existing meta-analyses rely on retrospective studies, while the prospective studies present an inadequate level of evidence.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies on TDTs placement in RC patients after surgery was conducted. The main analysis index was the incidence of AL, Grade B AL, and Grade C AL, while secondary analysis index was the incidence of anastomotic bleeding, incision infection, and anastomotic stenosis. A comprehensive literature search was performed utilizing the databases Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science. We recorded Risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for each included study, and a fixed-effect model or random-effect model was used to investigate the correlation between TDTs placement and four outcomes after RC surgery.

RESULTS

Seven studies (1774 participants, TDT 890 vs non-TDT 884) were considered eligible for quantitative synthesis and meta-analysis. The meta-analysis revealed that the incidence of AL was 9.3% (83/890) in the TDT group and 10.2% (90/884) in the non-TDT group. These disparities were found to lack statistical significance (P = 0.58). A comprehensive meta-analysis, comprising four studies involving a cumulative sample size of 1259 participants, revealed no discernible disparity in the occurrence of Grade B AL or Grade C AL between the TDT group and the non-TDT group (Grade B AL: TDT 34/631 vs non-TDT 26/628, P = 0.30; Grade C AL: TDT 11/631 vs non-TDT 27/628, P = 0.30). Similarly, the incidences of anastomotic bleeding (4 studies, 876 participants), incision infection (3studies, 713 participants), and anastomotic stenosis (2studies, 561 participants) were 5.5% (24/440), 8.1% (29/360), and 2.9% (8/280), respectively, in the TDT group, and 3.0% (13/436), 6.5% (23/353), and 3.9% (11/281), respectively, in the non-TDT group. These differences were also determined to lack statistical significance (P = 0.08, P = 0.43, P = 0.48, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The placement of TDTs does not significantly affect the occurrence of AL, Grade B AL, and Grade C AL following surgery for rectal cancer. Additionally, TDTs placement does not be associated with increased complications such as anastomotic bleeding, incision infection, or anastomotic stenosis.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO: CRD42023427914.

Efficacy of transanal drainage tube placement in preventing anastomotic leakage after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis in patients with ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

Transanal drainage tube (TDT) is used to prevent anastomotic leakage after surgery for rectal cancer. However, it remains unclear whether intraoperative TDT placement is also useful in preventing anastomotic leakage after ileal pouch-anal or ileal pouch-anal canal anastomosis (IPAA) in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of intraoperative TDT placement in preventing anastomotic leakage after IPAA in patients with UC.

METHODS

Patients with UC who underwent proctectomy with IPAA in the study institution between January 2000 and December 2021 were enrolled in this retrospective cohort study. The relationship between TDT placement and anastomotic leakage was evaluated by logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

The study population included 168 patients. TDT was placed intraoperatively in 103 of the 168 patients (61.3%). The rate of anastomotic leakage was significantly lower in the TDT group than in the non-TDT group (7.8% vs 18.5%, p = 0.037). Reoperation was not needed in any patient in the TDT group whereas two reoperations were necessary in the non-TDT group (3.1%). By logistic regression analysis, intraoperative TDT placement was an independent protective factor for anastomotic leakage.

CONCLUSIONS

TDT placement was significantly associated with anastomotic leakage of IPAA in patients with UC undergoing surgery. Although two-stage surgery with ileostomy is usually preferred in UC surgery, our findings suggest that TDT placement might contribute to the improvement of postoperative outcomes after UC surgery.

Efficacy of transanal drainage tube in preventing anastomotic leakage after surgery for rectal cancer: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic leakage (AL) following rectal cancer surgery is an important cause of mortality and recurrence. Although transanal drainage tubes (TDTs) are expected to reduce the rate of AL, their preventive effects are controversial.

AIM

To reveal the effect of TDT in patients with symptomatic AL after rectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed using the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies (PCSs) in which patients were assigned to two groups depending on the use or non-use of TDT and in which AL was evaluated. The results of the studies were synthesized using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model, and a two-tailed P value > 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Three RCTs and two PCSs were included in this study. Symptomatic AL was examined in all 1417 patients (712 with TDT), and TDTs did not reduce the symptomatic AL rate. In a subgroup analysis of 955 patients without a diverting stoma, TDT reduced the symptomatic AL rate (odds ratio = 0.50, 95% confidence interval: 0.29-0.86, P = 0.012).

CONCLUSION

TDT may not reduce AL overall among patients undergoing rectal cancer surgery. However, patients without a diverting stoma may benefit from TDT placement.

Transanal drainage tube for the prevention of anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Anastomotic leakage (AL) is a serious complication of anterior resection for rectal cancer. The use of transanal drainage tubes (TDT) during surgery to prevent AL remains controversial. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to determine the efficacy of TDT in reducing AL.

Methods

Relevant data and studies published from inception until November 1, 2022, were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases to compare the incidence of AL after anterior resection for rectal cancer with and without TDT.

Results

This meta-analysis included 5 RCTs comprising 1385 patients. The results showed that the intraoperative use of TDT could not reduce the incidence of AL after rectal cancer surgery (risk ratio [RR], 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52-1.59; p = 0.75). A subgroup analysis of different degrees of AL revealed that TDT did not reduce the incidence of postoperative grade B AL (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.67-2.09; p = 0.56) but decreased the incidence of grade C AL (RR, 0.28; 95% CI: 0.12-0.64; p = 0.003). Further, TDT did not reduce the incidence of AL in patients with rectal cancer and a stoma (RR, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.01-5.71; p = 0.05).

Conclusion

TDT were ineffective in reducing the overall incidence of AL, but they might be beneficial in reducing the incidence of grade C AL in patients who underwent anterior resection. However, additional multicenter RCTs with larger sample sizes based on unified control standards and TDT indications are warranted to validate these findings.

Transanal drainage tube for the prevention of anastomotic leakage in anterior resection for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the ability of the transanal drainage tube (TDT) to prevent anastomotic leakage (AL) and provide clinicians with the latest evidence in this area.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We search for relevant studies according to a search strategy. Data extracted from the study were analyzed using RevMan 5.4 software.

RESULTS

Fourteen eligible studies were included in our meta-analysis. The results of this meta-analysis suggest that patients with TDT placement have a lower incidence of AL than those without TDT placement (6% vs. 9.1%) (RR = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.46, 0.73, P < 0.00001). However, pooled results from RCTs suggest that TDT does not appear to reduce the incidence of AL in patients (6.4% vs. 8%) (RR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.52, 1.18, P = 0.24). In addition, the results of the meta-analysis suggest that TDT appears to reduce patient reoperation rates (2.6% vs. 5.8%) (RR = 0.38, 95% CI 0.27, 0.54, P < 0.00001).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the RCTs suggest that TDT placement does not reduce the AL rate in patients, however, it is undeniable that the placement of TDT does provide patients with some clinical benefits (such as reduced reoperation rates).