To drain or not to drain extraperitoneal colorectal anastomosis? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Mitigating 'inevitable' anastomotic leaks in left-sided colorectal surgery: a combined strategy using indocyanine green fluorescence, intraoperative colonscopy and patient risk profiling

This study aimed to identify patient-specific risk factors and intraoperative findings obtained from indocyanine green fluorescence angiography (ICG-FA) and intraoperative colonoscopy (IOC), using a structured endoscopic grading scale, to guide surgical decisions and minimize the risk of anastomotic leakage in colorectal surgery. One hundred-eleven patients undergoing elective left-sided colorectal resections were evaluated intraoperatively using both ICG-FA and IOC, with anastomoses classified by a new endoscopic grading scale (Grades 1-5). Anastomoses classified as suboptimal (grade > 3) were taken down and reconstructed or repaired. The primary aim of the study was to determine the rate of anastomotic leakage (AL) using this integrated strategy and subsequently to identify patient-specific risk factors associated with AL. Among 111 patients, 102 patients (91.8%) at the IOC were classified as Grade 1, 4 patients (3.6%) as Grade 2, 4 patients (3.6%) as Grade 3, and 1 patient (0.9%) as Grade 4. The overall AL rate was 10.8% (12 patients). On multivariate logistic regression analysis, only anastomotic level ≤ 12 cm emerged as an independent risk factor of AL (OR 0.064, 95% CI 0.008-0.517, p = 0.010). Among patients who developed an AL, 3 (25%) required surgical intervention, the others were managed endoscopically or conservatively. An integrated approach involving ICG-FA and IOC may aid to construct a technically optimal colorectal anastomosis. Nevertheless, anastomotic leakage can still occur due to factors unrelated to intraoperative technique, particularly low anastomosis height. These factors should prompt routine consideration of protective loop ileostomy and pelvic drainage to mitigate AL clinical consequences.

Implementing a no-drain policy for extraperitoneal colorectal anastomosis in a real-life setting: analysis of outcomes and surgeons' adherence

AIM

Recent evidence has questioned the usefulness of anastomotic drain (AD) after low anterior resection (LAR). However, the implementation and adoption of a no-drain policy are still poor. This study aims to assess the clinical outcomes of the implementation of a no-drain policy for rectal cancer surgery into a real-life setting and the adherence of the surgeons to such policy.

METHOD

A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients who underwent elective minimally invasive LAR between January 2015 and December 2019 at two tertiary referral centers. In 2017, both centers implemented a policy aimed at reducing the use of AD. Patients were retrospectively categorized into two groups: the drain policy (DP) group, comprising patients treated before 2017, and the no-drain policy (NDP) group, consisting of patients treated from 2017 onwards. The endpoints were the rate of anastomotic leak (AL) and of related interventions.

RESULTS

Among the 272 patients included, 188 (69.1%) were in the NDP group, and 84 (30.9%) were in the DP group. Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. AL rate was 11.2% in the NDP group compared to 10.7% in the DP group (p = 1.000), and the AL grade distribution (grade A, 19.1% (4/21) vs 28.6% (2/9); grade B, 28.6% (6/21) vs 11.1% (1/9); grade C, 52.4% (11/21) vs 66.7% (6/9), p = 0.759) did not significantly differ between the groups. All patients with symptomatic AL and AD underwent surgical treatment for the leak, while those with symptomatic AL in the NPD group were managed with surgery (66.7%), endoscopic (19.0%), or percutaneous (14.3%) interventions. Postoperative outcomes were similar between the groups. Three years after implementing the no-drain policy, AD was utilized in only 16.5% of cases, compared to 76.2% at the study's outset.

CONCLUSION

The introduction of a no-drain policy received a good adoption rate and did not affect negatively the surgical outcomes.

Risk Factors for Rectal Stump Leakage After Discontinuity Resection: Stump Length Matters Most

BACKGROUND

Discontinuity resection is commonly conducted to avoid anastomotic leakage in high-risk patients but potentially results in rectal stump leakage. Although risk factors for anastomotic leakage have been widely studied, data on rectal stump leakage rates and underlying risk factors are scarce.

OBJECTIVE

To determine rectal stump leakage rates following Hartmann's procedure and to identify patient-and surgery-associated risk factors.

DESIGN

A retrospective study with univariate and multivariate analyses was performed to identify risk factors of rectal stump leakage. A subgroup analysis of scheduled operations was performed.

SETTINGS

The study was conducted at Heidelberg University Hospital, Germany.

PATIENTS

Patients were included who underwent discontinuity resection with rectal stump formation between 2010 and 2020.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main outcome measures included rectal stump leakage rates, 30-day mortality, length of hospitalization, and necessity for further invasive treatment.

RESULTS

Rectal stump leakage occurred in 11.78% of patients. Rectal stump leakage rates varied considerably depending on the surgical procedure performed and were highest following subtotal pelvic exenteration (34%). Diagnosis of rectal stump leakage peaked on postoperative day 7. A short rectal stump ( p = 0.001), previous pelvic radiotherapy ( p = 0.04), chemotherapy ( p = 0.004), and previous laparotomy ( p = 0.03) were independent risk factors for rectal stump leakage in the entire patient collective. In patients undergoing scheduled surgery, a short rectal stump was the only independent risk factor ( p = 0.003). Rectal stump leakage was not associated with increased 30-day mortality but prolonged length of hospitalization and frequently necessitated further invasive treatment.

LIMITATIONS

Study results are limited by the retrospective design, a high number of emergency operations, and the mere inclusion of symptomatic leakages.

CONCLUSIONS

Rectal stump leakage is a relevant complication after discontinuity resection. Risk factors should be considered during surgical decision-making when both discontinuity resection and abdominoperineal resection are feasible. See Video Abstract.

FACTORES DE RIESGO PARA LA FUGA DEL MUN RECTAL DESPUS DE UNA RESECCIN POR DISCONTINUIDAD LA LONGITUD DEL MUN ES LO MS IMPORTANTE

ANTECEDENTES:La resección de discontinuidad se realiza comúnmente para evitar la fuga anastomótica en pacientes de alto riesgo, pero potencialmente da como resultado una fuga del muñón rectal. Si bien los factores de riesgo de fuga anastomótica se han estudiado ampliamente, los datos sobre las tasas de fuga del muñón rectal y los factores de riesgo subyacentes son escasos.OBJETIVO:Determinar las tasas de fuga del muñón rectal después del procedimiento de Hartmann e identificar los factores de riesgo asociados con el paciente y la cirugía.DISEÑO:Se realizó un estudio retrospectivo con análisis univariado y multivariado para identificar los factores de riesgo de fuga del muñón rectal. Se llevó a cabo un análisis de subgrupos de las operaciones programadas.AJUSTES:El estudio se realizó en el Hospital Universitario de Heidelberg, Alemania.PACIENTES:Se incluyeron pacientes que se sometieron a resección de discontinuidad con formación de muñón rectal entre 2010 y 2020.MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO PRINCIPALES:Las principales medidas de resultado incluyeron las tasas de fuga del muñón rectal, la mortalidad a los 30 días, la duración de la hospitalización y la necesidad de un tratamiento invasivo adicional.RESULTADOS:La fuga del muñón rectal ocurrió en el 11,78% de los pacientes. Las tasas de fuga del muñón rectal variaron considerablemente según el procedimiento quirúrgico realizado y fueron más altas después de la exenteración pélvica subtotal (34%). El diagnóstico de fuga del muñón rectal alcanzó su punto máximo en el día 7 del postoperatorio. Un muñón rectal corto (p = 0,001), radioterapia pélvica previa (p = 0,04), quimioterapia (p = 0,004) y laparotomía previa (p = 0,03) fueron factores de riesgo independientes de fuga rectal. Fuga del muñón en todo el colectivo de pacientes. En los pacientes sometidos a cirugía programada, el muñón rectal corto fue el único factor de riesgo independiente (p = 0,003). La fuga del muñón rectal no se asoció con un aumento de la mortalidad a los 30 días, pero con una duración prolongada de la hospitalización y con frecuencia requirió un tratamiento invasivo adicional.LIMITACIONES:Los resultados del estudio están limitados por el diseño retrospectivo, un alto número de operaciones de emergencia y la mera inclusión de fugas sintomáticas.CONCLUSIONES:La fuga del muñón rectal es una complicación relevante tras la resección por discontinuidad. Se deben considerar los factores de riesgo durante la toma de decisiones quirúrgicas cuando son factibles tanto la resección por discontinuidad como la resección abdominoperineal. (Traducción-Yesenia Rojas-Khalil ).

Predictive Factors for Anastomotic Leakage Following Colorectal Cancer Surgery: Where Are We and Where Are We Going?

Anastomotic leakage (AL) remains one of the most severe complications following colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery. Indeed, leaks that may occur after any type of intestinal anastomosis are commonly associated with a higher reoperation rate and an increased risk of postoperative morbidity and mortality. At first, our review aims to identify specific preoperative, intraoperative and perioperative factors that eventually lead to the development of anastomotic dehiscence based on the current literature. We will also investigate the role of several biomarkers in predicting the presence of ALs following colorectal surgery. Despite significant improvements in perioperative care, advances in surgical techniques, and a high index of suspicion of this complication, the incidence of AL remained stable during the last decades. Thus, gaining a better knowledge of the risk factors that influence the AL rates may help identify high-risk surgical patients requiring more intensive perioperative surveillance. Furthermore, prompt diagnosis of this severe complication may help improve patient survival. To date, several studies have identified predictive biomarkers of ALs, which are most commonly associated with the inflammatory response to colorectal surgery. Interestingly, early diagnosis and evaluation of the severity of this complication may offer a significant opportunity to guide clinical judgement and decision-making.

Multicenter Study of Drain Fluid Amylase as a Biomarker for the Detection of Anastomotic Leakage After Ileal Pouch Surgery Without a Diverting Ileostomy

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic leak is the anathema of colorectal surgery. Early diagnosis is an essential segue to early intervention. A temporary defunctioning ileostomy does not prevent an anastomotic leak and presents inherent complications of its own. Drain fluid biomarkers have been studied in colorectal surgery but not in ileal pouch surgery.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess drain fluid amylase as a biomarker of anastomotic leak after ileal pouch surgery and without a diverting ileostomy.

DESIGN

This was a multicenter prospective observational cohort study.

SETTINGS

The study was conducted at 4 tertiary hospitals in Queensland, Australia.

PATIENTS

This study included elective patients undergoing restorative proctectomy and ileal pouch surgery.

INTERVENTIONS

Measurement of rectal tube amylase and drain fluid amylase.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary measure was observation of increased drain fluid amylase on the day of anastomotic leak.

RESULTS

Fifty-three patients were studied. On the day of anastomotic leak, 4 patients in the anastomotic leak group who experienced an early anastomotic leak recorded a median drain fluid amylase of 21,897 U/L compared with a median drain fluid amylase of 25 U/L for those in the no anastomotic leak group ( p < 0.0001).

LIMITATIONS

This study relies on the anastomotic leak occurring while the pelvic drain is in situ.

CONCLUSIONS

The measurement of drain fluid amylase is a sensitive biomarker of early clinical anastomotic leak in patients undergoing restorative proctectomy with an ileal pouch and when a diverting ileostomy is not incorporated. This simple, inexpensive, and noninvasive test should be considered in all patients with ileal pouches as an adjunct to the clinical diagnosis and differentiation of anastomotic leak from other postoperative complications. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B958 .Estudio multicéntrico de la amilasa del líquido de drenaje como biomarcador para la detección de fugas anastomóticas después de una cirugía de reservorio ileal sin ileostomía de derivación.

ANTECEDENTES

La fuga anastomótica es el anatema de la cirugía colorrectal. El diagnóstico precoz es una transición esencial a la intervención temprana. Una ileostomía desfuncionalizante temporal no evita una fuga anastomótica y presenta sus propias complicaciones inherentes. Los biomarcadores del líquido de drenaje se han estudiado en la cirugía colorrectal, pero no en la cirugía del reservorio ileal.

OBJETIVO

El objetivo fue evaluar la amilasa del líquido de drenaje como biomarcador de fuga anastomótica después de cirugía de reservorio ileal y sin ileostomía de derivación.

DISEO

Este fue un estudio de cohorte observacional prospectivo multicéntrico.

AJUSTES

El estudio se realizó en 4 hospitales terciarios en Queensland, Australia.

PACIENTES

Se incluyeron pacientes electivos sometidos a proctectomía restauradora y cirugía de reservorio ileal.

INTERVENCIONES

Medición de la amilasa del tubo rectal y amilasa del líquido de drenaje.

PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO

La medida principal fue la observación del aumento de la amilasa en el líquido de drenaje el día de la fuga anastomótica.

RESULTADOS

Cincuenta y tres pacientes fueron estudiados. Los 4 pacientes que experimentaron una fuga anastomótica temprana registraron una mediana de amilasa en el líquido de drenaje de 21 897 U/L el día de la fuga anastomótica en comparación con una mediana de amilasa en el líquido de drenaje de 25 U/L para aquellos en el grupo sin fuga anastomótica (p < 0,0001).

LIMITACIONES

Este estudio se basa en que la anastomosis ocurre mientras el drenaje pélvico está in situ.

CONCLUSIONES

La medición de amilasa en el líquido de drenaje es un biomarcador sensible de fuga anastomótica clínica temprana en pacientes sometidos a proctectomía restauradora con reservorio ileal y cuando no se incorpora ileostomía derivativa. Esta prueba simple, económica y no invasiva se debe considerar en todos los pacientes con reservorio ileal como complemento del diagnóstico clínico y la diferenciación de la fuga anastomótica de otras complicaciones posoperatorias. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B958 . (Traducción-Dr Yolanda Colorado ).

Severe complications from anastomotic leakage after total mesorectal excision with the protective loop ileostomy in three patients

Introduction and importance

A protective loop ileostomy is recommended in ultra-low rectal cancer to reduce the complications associated with anastomotic leakage (AL), but there are few studies on the complications after AL. The purpose of this study was to outline our experience in the successful treatment of severe abdominal infection after AL in rectal cancer patients with the protective loop ileostomy.

Case presentation

In this report, we describe three cases of AL after standard total mesorectal excision with the protective loop ileostomy. Severe abdominal infection occurred postoperatively. The patients were successfully treated by surgical reintervention and had an uneventful recovery. No recurrence was observed after 2 years.

Clinical discussion

We consider that pelvic floor reconstruction and extending the extubation time should be performed in patients with a high risk of AL. Moreover, when severe abdominal infection and early infectious shock occur after AL, immediate reoperation should be performed to minimize the complication.

Conclusion

Protective loop ileostomy can't decrease the re-operation rate for patients with AL. We should take preventive measures during and after the operation, as well as early detection and early treatment.

•

The protective loop ileostomy sometimes can’t prevent severe complications for patients with anastomotic leakage after TME operation

•

Severe abdominal infection needs operation immediately.

•

Pelvic floor reconstruction and extending the extubation time can reduce reoperation rate

A development study of drain fluid gastrografin as a biomarker of anastomotic leak

PURPOSE

Anastomotic leakage (AL) is the anathema of colorectal surgery. Its occurrence leads to increased morbidity and mortality and a prolonged hospital stay. Much work has gone into studying various biomarkers in drain fluid to facilitate early detection of AL. This stage 2a development study aims to assess the safety and feasibility of reliably detecting the iodine in Gastrografin (GG; Bayer Australia Ltd.) in drain fluid and stool samples by dual-energy computed tomography (DECT).

METHODS

This is a prospective, observational, controlled, consecutive cohort study establishing the safety and feasibility of the detection of GG in surgical drain fluid and stool as a biomarker of AL when patients with a low pelvic colorectal anastomosis undergo luminal flushing of the rectal tube with GG.

RESULTS

Ten consecutive patients were allocated to the saline flush group and the following 10 to the GG flush group. Three patients in the saline flush group developed an AL. One patient in the GG flush group developed an AL. An elevation in the drain fluid GG was detected using DECT on the day of clinical deterioration. None of the patients in the control group were found to have a positive result on DECT.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates the safety of a novel approach to the early detection of AL from extraperitoneal colorectal anastomoses. The technique requires validation in a larger cohort and a multicenter study is planned to investigate the efficacy of GG rectal tube flushes as an early biomarker of AL in low pelvic anastomoses.

Anastomotic leakage in colorectal cancer surgery

The safety of colorectal surgery for oncological disease is steadily improving, but anastomotic leakage is still the most feared and devastating complication from both a surgical and oncological point of view. Anastomotic leakage affects the outcome of the surgery, increases the times and costs of hospitalization, and worsens the prognosis in terms of short- and long-term outcomes. Anastomotic leakage has a wide range of clinical features ranging from radiological only finding to peritonitis and sepsis with multi-organ failure. C-reactive protein and procalcitonin have been identified as early predictors of anastomotic leakage starting from postoperative day 2-3, but abdominal-pelvic computed tomography scan is still the gold standard for the diagnosis. Several treatments can be adopted for anastomotic leakage. However, there is not a universally accepted flowchart for the management, which should be individualized based on patient's general condition, anastomotic defect size and location, indication for primary resection and presence of the proximal stoma. Non-operative management is usually preferred in patients who underwent proximal faecal diversion at the initial operation. Laparoscopy can be attempted after minimal invasive surgery and can reduce surgical stress in patients allowing a definitive treatment. Reoperation for sepsis control is rarely necessary in those patients who already have a diverting stoma at the time of the leak, especially in extraperitoneal anastomoses. In patients without a stoma who do not require abdominal reoperation for a contained pelvic leak, there are several treatment options, including laparoscopic diverting ileostomy combined with trans-anal anastomotic tube drainage, percutaneous drainage or recently developed endoscopic procedures, such as stent or clip placement or endoluminal vacuum-assisted therapy. We describe the current approaches to treat this complication, as well as the clinical tests necessary to diagnose and provide an effective therapy.

Drain fluid amylase as a biomarker for the detection of anastomotic leakage after rectal resection without a diverting ileostomy

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic leak (AL) is the anathema of colorectal surgery. Early diagnosis is an essential segue to early intervention. A temporary diverting ileostomy (TDI) does not prevent an AL and presents inherent complications of its own. Numerous drain fluid biomarkers (BM) have been studied in colorectal surgery and extravasated intraluminal substances (EILS) such as amylase have shown promise. The aim of this study was to assess drain fluid amylase (DFA) as a BM of AL after minimally invasive rectal resection without a TDI.

METHODS

A single centre prospective cohort study performed from 2018 to 2021. The primary outcome was DFA measured daily whilst the drain was in situ. Rectal tube amylase was also measured for the first two post-operative days to quantitate the intra-luminal levels of the enzyme. DFA was compared between patients who experienced AL and those who did not.

RESULTS

Of the 62 patients studied, six (9.7%) experienced AL. There was a statistically significant difference in DFA between patients who experienced AL (Median:1373.5 U/L; IQR: 306-7953) and patients who did not experience an AL (Median: 27.0 U/L; IQR: 16-38); p < 0.0001.

CONCLUSIONS

The measurement of drain fluid amylase is a highly sensitive BM of early clinical anastomotic leak in patients undergoing a rectal resection with an extraperitoneal anastomosis and when a TDI is not incorporated. This simple, inexpensive and non-invasive test should be considered in all patients as an adjunct to the clinical diagnosis and differentiation of AL from other postoperative complications.

Risk Factors and Preventive Measures for Anastomotic Leak in Colorectal Cancer

Anastomotic leak (AL) represents one of the most detrimental complications after colorectal surgery. The patient-related factors and surgery-related factors leading to AL have been identified in previous studies. Through early identification and timely adjustment of risk factors, preventive measures can be taken to reduce potential AL. However, there are still many problems associated with AL. The debate about preventive measures such as preoperative mechanical bowel preparation (MBP), intraoperative drainage, and surgical scope also continues. Recently, the gut microbiota has received more attention due to its important role in various diseases. Although the underlying mechanisms of gut microbiota on AL have not been validated completely, new strategies that manipulate intrinsic mechanisms are expected to prevent and treat AL. Moreover, laboratory examinations for AL prediction and methods for blood perfusion assessment are likely to be promoted in clinical practice. This review outlines possible risk factors for AL and suggests some preventive measures in terms of patient, surgery, and gut microbiota.

Updates of Risk Factors for Anastomotic Leakage after Colorectal Surgery

Anastomotic leakage is a potentially severe complication occurring after colorectal surgery and can lead to increased morbidity and mortality, permanent stoma formation, and cancer recurrence. Multiple risk factors for anastomotic leak have been identified, and these can allow for better prevention and an earlier diagnosis of this significant complication. There are nonmodifiable factors such as male gender, comorbidities and distance of tumor from anal verge, and modifiable risk factors, including smoking and alcohol consumption, obesity, preoperative radiotherapy and preoperative use of steroids or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Perioperative blood transfusion was shown to be an important risk factor for anastomotic failure. Recent studies on the laparoscopic approach in colorectal surgery found no statistical difference in anastomotic leakage rate compared with open surgery. A diverting stoma at the time of primary surgery does not appear to reduce the leak rate but may reduce its clinical consequences and the need for additional surgery if anastomotic leakage does occur. It is still debatable if preoperative bowel preparation should be used, especially for left colon and rectal resections, but studies have shown similar incidence of postoperative leak rate.

Risk Factors for Anastomotic Leak, Consideration for Proximal Diversion, and Appropriate Use of Drains

Anastomotic leaks are a major source of morbidity after colorectal surgery. There is a myriad of risk factors that may contribute to anastomotic leaks. These risk factors can be categorized as modifiable, nonmodifiable, and intraoperative factors. Identification of these risk factors allows for preoperative optimization that may minimize the risk of anastomotic leak. Knowledge of such high-risk features may also affect intraoperative decision-making regarding the creation of an anastomosis, consideration for proximal diversion, or placement of a drain. A thorough understanding of the interplay between risk factors, indications for proximal diversion, and utility of drain placement is imperative for colorectal surgeons.

An umbrella systematic review of drain fluid analysis in colorectal surgery for the detection of anastomotic leak: Not yet ready to translate research studies into clinical practice

AIM

Anastomotic leak (AL) is the most important complication of intestinal surgery with an anastomosis. Whilst a number of studies have defined risk factors for AL, frustratingly, low-risk patients still develop AL. Studies have looked at drain fluid analysis for detection of AL, but these findings have failed to translate into routine clinical practice. This umbrella systematic review aims to provide an overview of the promising candidate biomarkers (BMs) that show potential to translate into clinical practice.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane, KSR Evidence and the Epistemonikos databases on the 14 April 2021. Only systematic reviews of cohort or controlled studies measuring drain fluid biomarkers in humans were included. The methodological quality of the reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 instrument. Clinical trial registries were searched for trials actively investigating drain fluid BMs. Candidate BMs were classified, and threshold values investigated.

RESULTS

Nine systematic reviews, published between 2007 and 2020, met the inclusion criteria, and contained a total of 36 cohort studies. A total of 38 different BMs were studied. The most promising category of drain fluid BM was the extravasated intra-luminal substances (EILS) and five registered trials of these BMs were found. Two of nine reviews were of moderate quality.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of BMs show inconsistent threshold values and are in the experimental stage. A number are not readily available for adoption into routine clinical practice. Most do not state a cut-off value to be considered as diagnostic.

Effect of pelvic drain displacement on anastomotic leakage-related morbidity after rectal cancer surgery

Purpose

Drain insertion after proctectomy is common in clinical practice, although the effectiveness of drains has been questioned. However, drains are commonly displaced after surgery. We hypothesized that drain displacement is associated with clinical outcomes and aimed to assess differences in clinical outcomes, such as overall morbidity, including anastomotic leakage (AL), reintervention rates, length of hospital stay, and mortality rates, between patients who experienced displaced drains and those who did not.

Methods

Rectal cancer patients who underwent proctectomy at a single institution between January 2015 and December 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Clinical characteristics were compared between patients who experienced displaced drains and those who did not. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of reintervention in patients with AL. The secondary endpoints were overall morbidity rates, AL rates, length of hospital stay, and mortality within 30 days.

Results

Among 248 patients who underwent proctectomy, 93 (37.5%) experienced displaced drains. A higher proportion of patients who experienced displaced drains required reintervention due to AL than those who did not experience displaced drains (odds ratio, 3.61; 95% confidential interval, 1.20–10.93; p = 0.016). However, no significant difference was found in the overall morbidity rate, mortality, and length of hospital stay between the groups.

Conclusion

Drain displacement does not worsen outcomes such as overall morbidity rate, mortality, and length of hospital stay after proctectomy but is associated with an increase in the need for reintervention in patients with AL.

Self-assembling peptide haemostatic gel reduces incidence of pelvic collection after total mesorectal excision: Prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Pelvic surgery has the potential to leave behind a large raw surface, which can bleed and ooze postoperatively. The adoption of precision surgical approach for rectal cancers has led to reduction in blood loss. We aimed to assess 1) the feasibility and 2) the safety of using a self-assembling peptide (SAP) haemostatic agent (PuraStat®) after rectal cancer surgery to reduce the incidence of pelvic collections.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective cohort pilot study compared the results of 25 consecutive cases of total mesorectal excision (TME) with use of 5-10 ml of SAP, and 25 consecutive cases without PuraStat® application (CON, control group). The groups were compared for complications (Clavien-Dindo grade III and IV classification), postoperative drain output and length of hospital stay (LOS). Statistical analysis was carried out using paired samples T test and Fisher's exact test.

RESULTS

Fifty patients (SAP = 25, CON = 25) were enrolled into this study. Mean drain outputs (ml) on day 1, day 2 and day 3 were 60 ± 18, 89 ± 42 and 64 ± 45 in SAP group, and 102 ± 31, 95 ± 52, 66 ± 37 in CON group. This was significantly better for SAP group in day one after surgery. The mean LOS was shorter in SAP group (5.7 versus 7.4 days in CON, p 0.04). Clavien-Dindo III & IV complications were seen in two and five cases respectively (p 0.18). R0 resection rate (p 0.32) and lymph node harvest (p 0.13) were similar in both groups. There were no complications seen in relation to the application of the SAP.

CONCLUSIONS

These initial data suggest that SAP is a safe product, and feasible to apply in the pelvis after TME surgery. It appears to shorten the LOS and reduce the postoperative drain output and may reduce the incidence of Clavien-Dindo grade III & IV complications.

Is routine splenic flexure mobilization always necessary in laparotomic or laparoscopic anterior rectal resection? A systematic review and comprehensive meta-analysis

Splenic flexure mobilization (SFM) is one of the most difficult steps in laparoscopic colorectal surgery and its role is harshly debated. Some surgeons considered it routinely necessary to obtain a safe anastomosis and to respect oncologic criteria; for others SFM is frequently unnecessary, not ensuring the aspects mentioned above and increasing the risk of morbidity (splenic, bowel and vessels injury, lengthened procedure). We performed a systematic review and a comprehensive meta-analysis, without any language restriction, about the peri-operative and post-operative outcomes (anastomotic leakage, intra-operative complication, conversion rate, operative time, post-operative bleeding, intra-abdominal collection, prolonged ileus, wound infection, anastomotic stricture, overall complications, hospital stay, re-operation, post-operative mortality, R0 margin resection, local recurrence) in patients undergoing elective anterior rectal resection (ARR) with or without SFM, both in laparotomic (LT) and laparoscopic (LS) approach. Fourteen studies were meta-analyzed with a total amount of 42,221 patients. The comprehensive meta-analysis shows that the mobilization or the preservation (SFP) of the splenic flexure does not statistically influence the incidence of colorectal anastomotic leakage, conversion rate, post-operative bleeding, intra-abdominal collection, prolonged ileus, wound infection, anastomotic stricture, overall complications, hospital stay, re-operation, R0 margin resection, and local recurrence results. The operative time is significantly longer in every group of patients undergoing SFM. The incidence of intra-operative complication is statistically increased in overall patients and also in the LS subgroup of patients undergoing SFM, in which also higher incidence of wound infection and re-operation is shown. The meta-analysis shows that SFM may be considered not necessary to ensure better peri-operative and post-operative outcomes in both LT and LS ARR.

Variation in Drain Management Among Patients Undergoing Major Hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Although previous studies have suggested that drain management is highly variable, data on drain placement and timing of drain removal among patients undergoing hepatic resection remain scarce. The objective of the current study was to define the utilization of drain placement among patients undergoing major hepatic resection.

METHODS

The ACS NSQIP-targeted hepatectomy database was used to identify patients who underwent major hepatectomy between 2014 and 2017. Association between day of drain removal, timing of discharge, and drain fluid bilirubin on postoperative day (POD) 3 (DFB-3) was assessed. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to compare outcomes of patients with a drain removed before and after POD 3.

RESULTS

Among 5330 patients, most patients had an abdominal drain placed at the time of hepatic resection (n = 3075, 57.7%). Of 2495 patients with data on timing of drain removal, only 380 patients (15.2%) had their drain removed by POD 3. Almost 1 in 6 patients (n = 441, 17.7%) were discharged home with the drain in place. DFB-3 values correlated poorly with POD of drain removal (R² = 0.0049). After PSM, early drain removal (≤ POD 3) was associated with lower rates of grade B or C bile leakage (2.1% vs. 7.1%, p = 0.008) and prolonged length of hospital stay (6.0% vs. 12.7%, p = 0.009) compared with delayed drain removal (> POD 3).

CONCLUSIONS

Roughly 3 in 5 patients had a drain placed at the time of major hepatectomy and only 1 in 7 patients had the drain removed early. This study demonstrated the potential benefits of early drain removal in an effort to improve the quality of care following major hepatectomy.

Drainage smell and peritonitis are efficient indicators of anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic rectal cancer resection

Objective

Anastomotic leakage (AL) is a frequent complication after laparoscopic rectal cancer resection (LRCR). The main objective of the present study was to identify accurate indicators of AL after LRCR.

Methods

A retrospective case-control study was performed of 185 patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer between March 2012 and February 2017 at Beijing Friendship Hospital. Potential indicators of AL were examined via univariate and multivariate analyses. The performance of multivariate analysis was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves.

Results

The overall AL rate was 17.84%. Multivariate analysis identified drainage smell (odds ratio [OR = 35.318, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 7.114 to 175.338) and peritonitis [OR = 17.475, 95% CI = 1.540 to 198.318) as independent indicators of AL. The area under the ROC curve was 0.720 (95% CI = 0.606 to 0.835).

Conclusion

Drainage smell and peritonitis could be reliable and accurate indicators of AL after LRCR.

Geographical Variation in the Use of Diverting Loop Ileostomy in Australia and New Zealand Colorectal Surgeons

Purpose

Anastomotic leak (AL) after a low pelvic anastomosis is a devastating complication, with short- and long-term morbidity and increased mortality. Surgeons may employ various adjuncts in an attempt to reduce AL rates or mitigate their impact. These include the use of temporary diverting ileostomy (TDI), transanal or rectal tubes and pelvic drains. This questionnaire evaluates the preferences and routine use of these adjuncts in Australasian colorectal surgeons.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey was administered to Australian and New Zealand colorectal surgeons on September 20, 2018. The study survey consisted of 15 questions exploring basic demographics and the number of rectal resections and ileal pouches performed in 12 months, along with the surgeon’s preference for the use of diverting stomas, rectal tubes, and pelvic drains.

Results

There were 90 respondents to the survey (31.6%). Surgeons in Western Australia (71.4%) were more likely to use a mandatory TDI in colorectal extraperitoneal anastomoses than surgeons in Queensland (14.3%). South Australian surgeons are more likely to employ a mandatory TDI (100%) for ileal pouches than Queensland surgeons (42.9%). Rectal tubes are not commonly utilized (40.0% never use them), and pelvic drains are (45.6% in all cases). Surgeons consider a median AL rate of 15% was felt to justify the use of a TDI in low pelvic anastomoses and a median AL rate of 10% for ileal pouches

Conclusion

There is considerable geographical variation in colorectal surgical practice throughout Australia and New Zealand. While surgeons interrogate the same literature, there are presumably other factors that see translation into variations in clinical practice.

The factors related to failure of Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) in colon cancer surgery

PURPOSE

Enhanced Recovery after Surgery has been proven effective for patients with gastrointestinal cancer. But radical enhanced recovery could also lead to adverse clinical outcomes. Compared with reports on the estimation of successful implementation of enhanced recovery, studies on risk factors of enhanced recovery failure are still lacking.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was carried out on 102 patients in ERAS who underwent elective colon cancer surgery. This study included 102 patients with colon cancer between 2015 and 2019, defining enhanced recovery failure as postoperative length of stay over 10 days, stay in ICU over 24 h after surgery, reoperation, death, or unplanned readmission within 30 days after surgery. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to explore potential risk factors of failure.

RESULTS

Aged ≥ 75, open operation, number of drainage tube over 1, re-urethral catheterization, and Clavien-Dindo grade over 2 were associated with ERAS failure, according to univariate analysis. Multivariate analysis showed that age ≥ 75 [OR 7.231; P = 0.009]; open operation (OR 3.599; P = 0.021); and number of drainage tube over 1 (OR 3.202; P = 0.020) were independent risk factors for ERAS failure.

CONCLUSIONS

We found age ≥ 75, open operation, and number of drainage tube over 1 are independent risk factors associated with ERAS failure after colon cancer surgery.

How to Prevent Anastomotic Leak in Colorectal Surgery? A Systematic Review

Anastomosis leakage (AL) after colorectal surgery is an embarrassing problem. It is associated with poor consequence. This review aims to summarize published evidence on prevention of AL after colorectal surgery and provide recommendations according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. We conducted bibliographic research on January 15, 2020, of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar. We retained meta-analysis, reviews, and randomized clinical trials. We concluded that mechanical bowel preparation did not reduce AL. It seems that oral antibiotic or oral antibiotic with mechanical bowel preparation could reduce the risk of AL. The surgical approach did not affect the AL rate. The low ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery could reduce the AL rate. The mechanical anastomosis is superior to handsewn anastomosis only in case of right colectomies, with similar results in rectal surgery between the 2 anastomosis techniques. In the case of right colectomies, this anastomosis could be performed intracorporeally or extracorporeally with similar outcomes. The air leak test did not reduce AL. There is no interest of external drainage in colonic surgery but drains reduced the rate of AL and rate of reoperation after low anterior resection. The transanal tube reduced the rate of AL.

Usefulness of Abdominal Drain in Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is one of the most common procedures to treat morbid obesity. Abdominal drains are often placed during the operation to detect complications earlier. The aim of this study was to assess the benefit of routine drain placement during laparoscopic RYGB. Materials and Methods: A consecutive series of patients undergoing laparoscopic RYGB between 2017 and 2018 was analyzed. The sample was randomized before the procedure into two groups: with abdominal drain (G1) and without abdominal drain placement (G2). Patients with intraoperative complications were excluded from the randomization. Postoperative complications and pain (visual analogue scale) were compared between groups. Results: A total of 84 patients were included; 45 belonged to G1 and 39 to G2. Mean age (G1 44 years versus G2 48 years) and body mass index (G1 43 kg/m2 versus G2 44 kg/m2) were similar in both groups. There were no significant differences between groups in preoperative comorbidities. Mean operative time was 92 minutes in both groups. Mean pain score at postoperative day 0 was similar in both groups (G1 3.2 versus G2 3.5, P = .58), but was higher in G1 at postoperative day 1 (G1 3.1, G2 1.1, P = .02). Postoperative Clavien-Dindo I-II complications were similar in both groups (G1 9% versus G2 1%, P = .37). No major complications, reoperations, or 30-day mortality occurred in the entire cohort. Conclusions: Drain placement in laparoscopic RYGB was associated with greater postoperative pain and did not show benefits in early detection of postoperative complications. Routine placement of abdominal drain in laparoscopic RYGB might not be recommended.

Is abdominal vascular calcification score valuable in predicting the occurrence of colorectal anastomotic leakage? A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Anastomotic leakage (AL) is a catastrophic surgical complication affecting the prognosis of patients after colorectal surgery. We aimed to determine the value of the arterial calcification (AC) score in predicting AL.

METHODS

Medline and Embase were searched through November 2019. The odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to estimate the association between AC and AL after colorectal surgery. The fixed-effects model or random-effects model was adopted for data pooling. Subgroup analyses were conducted to assess the effect of different aortoiliac trajectories.

RESULTS

Four studies involving 496 patients were included. The calcium volume and calcium score measurements of different trajectories revealed a significant difference with regard to the left and right common iliac arteries, the superior mesenteric artery, and the left common iliac artery. Calcification of the internal iliac artery significantly increased the risk of AL compared with no AL (OR = 1.005; 95% CI 1.002-1.009; P = 0.005), as did calcification of the left internal iliac artery (OR = 1.009; 95% CI 1.002-1.016; P = 0.011), but not of the common iliac artery (OR = 1.001; 95% CI 1.000-1.001; P = 0.317) or common and internal iliac artery (OR = 1.000; 95% CI 1.000-1.000; P = 1.000).

CONCLUSIONS

AC is associated with increased risk of AL following colorectal surgery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

CRD42019141236.

Prophylactic intra-abdominal drainage following colorectal anastomoses. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Clinically evident Anastomotic Leakage (AL) remains one of the most feared complications after colorectal resections with primary anastomosis. The primary aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine whether Prophylactic Drainage (PD) after colorectal anastomoses confers any advantage in the prevention and management of AL.

METHODS

Systematic literature search was performed using MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EMBASE databases for randomized studies comparing clinical outcomes of patients with Drained (D) or Undrained (UD) colorectal anastomoses performed for any cause.

RESULTS

Four randomized controlled trials comparing D and UD patients undergoing colorectal resections with primary anastomosis were included for quantitative synthesis. In total, 1120 patients were allocated to group D (n = 566) or group UD (n = 554). The clinical AL rate was 8.5% in the D group and 7.6% in the UD group, with no statistically significant difference (P = 0.57). Rates of radiological AL (D: 4.2% versus UD: 5.6%; P = 0.42), mortality (D: 3.6% versus UD: 4.4%; P = 0.63), overall morbidity (D: 16.6% versus UD: 18.6%, P = 0.38), wound infection (D: 5.4% versus UD: 5.3%, P = 0.95), pelvic sepsis (D: 9.7% versus UD: 10.5%, P = 0.75), postoperative bowel obstruction (D: 9.9% versus UD: 6.9%, P = 0.07), and reintervention for abdominal complication (D: 9.1% versus UD: 7.9%, P = 0.48) were equivalent between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The present meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials investigating the value of PD following colorectal anastomoses does not support the routine use of prophylactic drains.

Guidelines of the Brazilian Society of Oncologic Surgery for pelvic exenteration in the treatment of cervical cancer

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The primary treatment for locally advanced cases of cervical cancer is chemoradiation followed by high-dose brachytherapy. When this treatment fails, pelvic exenteration (PE) is an option in some cases. This study aimed to develop recommendations for the best management of patients with cervical cancer undergoing salvage PE.

METHODS

A questionnaire was administered to all members of the Brazilian Society of Surgical Oncology. Of them, 68 surgeons participated in the study and were divided into 10 working groups. A literature review of studies retrieved from the National Library of Medicine database was carried out on topics chosen by the participants. These topics were indications for curative and palliative PE, preoperative and intraoperative evaluation of tumor resectability, access routes and surgical techniques, PE classification, urinary, vaginal, intestinal, and pelvic floor reconstructions, and postoperative follow-up. To define the level of evidence and strength of each recommendation, an adapted version of the Infectious Diseases Society of America Health Service rating system was used.

RESULTS

Most conducts and management strategies reviewed were strongly recommended by the participants.

CONCLUSIONS

Guidelines outlining strategies for PE in the treatment of persistent or relapsed cervical cancer were developed and are based on the best evidence available in the literature.

Preventive strategies for anastomotic leakage after colorectal resections: A review

Anastomosis is a crucial step in radical cancer surgery. Despite being a daily practice in gastrointestinal surgery, anastomotic leakage (AL) stands as a frequent postoperative complication. Because of increased morbidity, mortality, combined with longer hospital stay, the rate of re-intervention, and poor oncological outcomes, AL is considered the most feared and life-threatening complication after colorectal resections. Furthermore, poor functional outcomes with a higher rate of a permeant stoma in 56% of patients this could negatively affect the patient’s quality of life. This a narrative review which will cover intraoperative anastomotic integrity assessment and preventive measures in order to reduce AL. Although the most important prerequisites for the creation of anastomosis is well-perfused and tension-free anastomosis, surgeons have proposed several preventive measures, which were assumed to reduce the incidence of AL, including antibiotic prophylaxis, intraoperative air leak test, omental pedicle flap, defunctioning stoma, pelvic drain insertion, stapled anastomosis, and general surgical technique. However, lack of clear evidence of which preventive measures is superior over the other combined with the fact that the decision remains based on the surgeon’s choice. Despite the advances in surgical techniques, AL remains a serious health problem associated with increased morbidity, mortality with additional cost. Many preventative measures were employed with no clear evidence supporting the superiority of stapled anastomosis over hand-Sewn anastomosis, coating of the anastomosis, or pelvic drain. Defunctioning stoma, when justified it could decrease the leakage-related complications and the incidence of reoperation. MBP combined with oral antibiotics still recommended.

In vivo validation of a miniaturized electrochemical oxygen sensor for measuring intestinal oxygen tension

Recent advances in the fields of electronics and microfabrication techniques have led to the development of implantable medical devices for use within the field of precision medicine. Monitoring visceral surface tissue O₂ tension (PTo2) by means of an implantable sensor is potentially useful in many clinical situations, including the perioperative management of patients undergoing intestinal resection and anastomosis. This concept could provide a means by which treatment could be tailored to individual patients. This study describes the in vivo validation of a novel, miniaturized electrochemical O₂ sensor to provide real-time data on intestinal PTo2. A single O₂ sensor was placed onto the serosal surface of the small intestine of anesthetized rats that were exposed to ischemic (superior mesenteric artery occlusion) and hypoxemic (alterations in inspired fractional O₂ concentrations) insults. Control experiments demonstrated that the sensors can function and remain stable in an in vivo environment. Intestinal PTo2 decreased following superior mesenteric artery occlusion and with reductions in inspired O₂ concentrations. These results were reversible after reinstating blood flow or by increasing inspired O₂ concentrations. We have successfully developed an anesthetized rat intestinal ischemic and hypoxic model for validation of a miniaturized O₂ sensor to provide real-time measurement of intestinal PTo2. Our results support further validation of the sensors in physiological conditions using a large animal model to provide evidence of their use in clinical applications where monitoring visceral surface tissue O₂ tension is important.NEW & NOTEWORTHY This is the first report of real-time continuous measurements of intestinal oxygen tension made using a microfabricated O₂ sensor. Using a developed rodent model, we have validated this sensor's ability to accurately measure dynamic and reversible changes in intestinal oxygenation that occur through ischemic and hypoxemic insults. Continuous monitoring of local intestinal oxygenation could have value in the postoperative monitoring of patients having undergone intestinal surgery.

Is a drain necessary after anterior resection of the rectum? A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The anastomotic leak rate in colorectal surgery is highest in patients receiving anterior rectal resections. The placement of prophylactic pelvic drains remains a routine option for preventing postoperative leaks, despite increasing evidence suggesting no clinical benefit. The present study seeks to identify a consensus on the use of prophylactic drains in anterior rectal resections.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted of MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases to identify clinical trials comparing the use of drainage to non-drainage in cases of colorectal anastomosis.

RESULTS

Three randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and two controlled clinical trials (CCTs) were identified that met the inclusion criteria, with a total of 1702 patients with rectal cancer who underwent anterior resection: 1206 with a pelvic drain and 496 without a pelvic drain. Meta-analysis showed that the use of a drain did not significantly improve the outcomes of anastomotic leaks; the overall reoperation rate during the 30-day postoperative period and the postoperative mortality were statistically lower in the drained group (OR 2.82, 95% CI 1.33 to 5.97; I2 = 0%).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of prophylactic pelvic drainage after anterior rectal resections does not provide significant benefits with respect to anastomotic leaks and overall complication rates. However, an approximately threefold reduction of the postoperative mortality of the drained patients was observed. Given the limitations of the present study, these findings warrant the use of a drain after anterior rectal resection. Nevertheless, due to the low quality of the available data, further multicenter trials with uniform inclusion criteria are needed to evaluate drain usage in the anterior rectal resection.

Drain fluid amylase as a sensitive biomarker for the early detection of anastomotic leakage in ileal pouch surgery

AIM

We studied the levels of amylase in drain fluid to investigate its utility as a biomarker of anastomotic leak in ileal pouch patients who did not have a covering loop ileostomy. The luminal contents of the small intestine are high in amylase. Ileal J pouches are formed for restoration of continuity in patients with ulcerative colitis after removal of the colon and rectum. A drain is placed alongside the ileal pouch in the pelvis.

METHOD

This study is a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected daily drain fluid amylase levels in consecutive patients undergoing restorative proctectomy and ileal J pouch anal anastomosis, without a covering loop ileostomy, between November 2016 and April 2018.

RESULTS

Thirteen patients underwent surgery without a covering loop ileostomy. Two patients suffered an anastomotic leak and were returned to theatre, one on day 5 and the other on day 6 postoperatively. The mean daily drain fluid amylase level in those who did not leak was between 25 and 46 U/l with a range of 22-139 U/l for all samples collected. In the two patients who suffered a clinical leak the drain fluid amylase level rose to 22 432 and 10 212 U/l on the day of clinical leak diagnosis. The mean rectal tube (intraluminal) amylase level was 63 097 U/l as measured on day 1 postoperatively.

CONCLUSION

In this small cohort of patients, the measurement of drain fluid amylase is a highly sensitive biomarker of clinical anastomotic leak.

Pelvic Drain After Laparoscopic Low Anterior Resection for Rectal Cancer in Patients With Diverting Stoma

BACKGROUND

This study is intended to assess whether the use of pelvic drain reduces incidence of pelvic sepsis in the era of laparoscopic low anterior resection (LAR).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In total, 200 of consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic LAR for rectal cancer with diverting stoma were analyzed.

RESULTS

Pelvic sepsis occurred in 14 of 110 patients (12.7%) in the drain group and in 9 of 90 patients (10.0%) in the no drain group (P=0.548). Furthermore, there were no differences in the incidence of anastomotic leakage, time to diagnosis of pelvic sepsis, and type of treatments for pelvic sepsis.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic pelvic drain use after laparoscopic LAR in patients with diverting stoma does not reduce incidence of pelvic sepsis. Routine use of pelvic drain is not recommended. This study was registered at UMIN (Registration Number: UMIN000026076).

[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.

Serum cytokines in early prediction of anastomotic leakage following low anterior resection

Introduction

Anastomotic leakage continues to be one of the most serious complications following low anterior resections. Early diagnosis of a leak is difficult but critical to minimize morbidity and mortality.

Aim

To evaluate changes in serum concentrations of 27 different cytokines following low anterior resection, with the goal of finding new, early biomarkers of anastomotic leak.

Material and methods

This is a prospective observational study that includes 32 patients undergoing elective low anterior resection for rectal cancer. Blood samples were collected preoperatively and on postoperative day 3.

Results

Five patients developed anastomotic leak (15%). On postoperative day 3, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), interleukin (IL)-6, and regulated on activation, normal T cell expressed and secreted (RANTES) were significantly higher in patients with anastomotic leak, while IL-9 and fibroblast growth factor (FGF) 2 were significantly lower. Analysis of relative changes in the concentration of cytokines from preoperative to postoperative day 3 revealed a significant increase of IL-6 and granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) in patients with an anastomotic leak. Upon receiver operating curve (ROC) analysis, the performance of hs-CRP was found to be excellent (AUC = 0.99), and performance of ΔIL-6, IL-6, RANTES, and FGF2 was good (AUC: 0.81–0.87). Patients who developed an anastomotic leak preoperatively had significantly lower levels of macrophage inflammatory protein-1 α (MIP-1α), monocyte chemotactic protein-1 (MCP-1), IL-8, FGF2, and G-CSF.

Conclusions

The single most accurate serum biomarker of anastomotic leakage continues to be hs-CRP. However, when analyzing relative changes of cytokine levels, ΔIL-6 appears to be a better leak predictor than CRP.

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.

Routine Drainage of Colorectal Anastomoses: An Evidence-Based Review of the Current Literature

BACKGROUND

The use of prophylactic drainage after colorectal anastomoses has been long debated. This report aimed to review the current literature discussing routine drainage of colorectal anastomoses highlighting two opposite perspectives (prodrainage and antidrainage) to demonstrate the clinical utility of prophylactic drainage and its proper indications.

METHODS

An organized literature search was conducted querying electronic databases and Google Scholar. Articles evaluating the role of routine prophylactic drainage after colorectal anastomosis were included and divided into two categories: articles supporting the use of drains (prodrainage) and articles disputing routine drainage (antidrainage).

RESULTS

There were seven systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses, one Cochrane review, one randomized controlled trial, and six prospective or retrospective cohort studies. Six studies supported prophylactic drainage of colorectal anastomoses; the quality of these studies ranged between grade II and IV. Nine studies recommended against the use of prophylactic drainage, six studies were grade I, one was grade II, and two were grade IV.

CONCLUSION

Since level I evidence studies including well-designed randomized trials and meta-analyses recommended against the use of pelvic drainage as a routine practice after colorectal anastomoses, we conclude no significant impact of routine drainage on the risk of anastomotic leakage after colorectal anastomoses.

To Drain or Not to Drain Infraperitoneal Anastomosis After Rectal Excision for Cancer: The GRECCAR 5 Randomized Trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effect of pelvic drainage after rectal surgery for cancer.

BACKGROUND

Pelvic sepsis is one of the major complications after rectal excision for rectal cancer. Although many studies have confirmed infectiveness of drainage after colectomy, there is still a controversy after rectal surgery.

METHODS

This multicenter randomized trial with 2 parallel arms (drain vs no drain) was performed between 2011 and 2014. Primary endpoint was postoperative pelvic sepsis within 30 postoperative days, including anastomotic leakage, pelvic abscess, and peritonitis. Secondary endpoints were overall morbidity and mortality, rate of reoperation, length of hospital stay, and rate of stoma closure at 6 months.

RESULTS

A total of 494 patients were randomized, 25 did not meet the criteria and 469 were analyzed: 236 with drain and 233 without. The anastomotic height was 3.5 ± 1.9 cm from the anal verge. The rate of pelvic sepsis was 17.1% (80/469) and was similar between drain and no drain: 16.1% versus 18.0% (P = 0.58). There was no difference of surgical morbidity (18.7% vs 25.3%; P = 0.83), rate of reoperation (16.6% vs 21.0%; P = 0.22), length of hospital stay (12.2 vs 12.2; P = 0.99) and rate of stoma closure (80.1% vs 77.3%; P = 0.53) between groups. Absence of colonic pouch was the only independent factor of pelvic sepsis (odds ratio = 1.757; 95% confidence interval 1.078-2.864; P = 0.024).

CONCLUSIONS

This randomized trial suggests that the use of a pelvic drain after rectal excision for rectal cancer did not confer any benefit to the patient.

Enhanced recovery after gastro-intestinal surgery: The scientific background

Enhanced recovery programs (ERP) are without any doubt a major innovation in the care of surgical patients. This multimodal approach encompasses elements of both medical and surgical care. The goal of this in-depth review is to analyze the surgical aspects of ERP, underlining the scientific rationale behind each element of ERP after surgery and in particular, the role of mechanical bowel preparation before colorectal surgery, the place of minimal access surgery, the utility of nasogastric tube, abdominal drainage, bladder catheters and early re-feeding. Publication of factual data has allowed many dogmas to be discarded.

Efficacy of Prophylactic Mesh in End-Colostomy Construction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Parastomal hernia is a very common complication after colostomy, especially end-colostomy. It is unclear whether prophylactic placement of mesh at the time of stoma formation could prevent parastomal hernia formation after surgery for rectal cancer. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to evaluate the efficacy of prophylactic mesh in end-colostomy construction.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched, covering records entered from their inception to September 2015. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing stoma with mesh to stoma without mesh after surgery for rectal cancer were included. The primary outcome was the incidence of parastomal hernia. Pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) were obtained using random effects models.

RESULTS

Six RCTs containing 309 patients were included. Parastomal hernia occurred in 24.4 % (38 of 156) of patients with mesh and 50.3 % (77 of 153) of patients without mesh. Meta-analysis showed a lower incidence of parastomal hernia (RR, 0.42; 95 % CI 0.22-0.82) and reoperation related to parastomal hernia (RR, 0.23; 95 % CI 0.06-0.89) in patients with mesh. Stoma-related morbidity was similar between mesh group and non-mesh group (RR, 0.65; 95 % CI 0.33-1.30).

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic placement of a mesh at the time of a stoma formation seems to be associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of parastomal hernia and reoperation related to parastomal hernia after surgery for rectal cancer, but not the rate of stoma-related morbidity. However, the results should be interpreted with caution because of the heterogeneity among the studies.

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.

May the drain be a way in for microbes in surgical infections?

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infection (SSI) is among the most frequent hospital-acquired infections occurring in surgical patients and leads to increased morbidity, mortality, and costs. We aimed to identify risk factors for SSI in patients undergoing surgical procedures, with a particular attention to the use of drains.

METHODS

This study includes all patients undergoing abdominal surgical procedures in 2 surgical wards in a teaching hospital in central Italy. Collected data included patient's demographic and clinical characteristics, procedure characteristics, administration of perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis, and microorganism isolated. The outcome of interest was SSI.

FINDINGS

A total of 872 abdominal surgery procedures were surveyed during the study period. Drains were placed in 37.0% of cases. SSI rate was 6.4% globally and 13.6% among the patients with drains, versus 2.4% in those without a drain (P < .001). In 72.1% of cases antibiotic prophylaxis was administered. The logistic regression analysis (P < .001) shown insertion of a drain (odds ratio [OR], 5.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.63-10.08), prolonged surgery (OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.09-3.59), and American Society of Anesthesiologists score equal to 3 (OR, 6.13; 95% CI, 2.33-16.11) as independent risk factors for SSI, whereas antibiotic prophylaxis was protective (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.29-0.99).

CONCLUSION

This study revealed surgical drains as a risk factor for SSI, pointing out the need of a clearer understanding of drain role in the dynamics of SSI occurrence, with the purpose of decreasing infection risk through targeted preventive interventions.