Indwelling trans-anastomotic rectal tubes in colorectal surgery: a survey of usage in UK and Ireland

Use of transanal drainage tube to prevent anastomotic leakage: intangible differences between the East and the West

Trans-anal drainage tube is used to reduce the rectal pressure, especially at the anastomotic site and thus to protect the anastomosis. Ideally it serves as and even may replace a diverting stoma. When compared to no treatment, the effectiveness of TDT seems confirmed based on the literature, but it remains uncertain whether TDT can replace the diverting stoma. Despite the insignificant tangible costs of TDT, it seems different cultures put varied weight on the intangible costs such as discomfort and pain to patients after surgery.

Does rectal tube/transanal stent placement after an anterior resection for rectal cancer reduce anastomotic leak? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is increasing evidence that either a transanal stent (TAS) or rectal tube (RT) can decrease the risk of anastomotic leakage (AL) after anterior resection for rectal cancer, in which a diverting stoma may not be required.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to investigate the efficacy and safety of RT/TAS in preventing AL after anterior resections.

DATA SOURCES

An up-to-date systematic review was performed on the available literature between 2000 and 2020 on PubMed, EMBASE, Medline and Cochrane Library databases.

STUDY SELECTION

All studies reporting on anterior resections in adults, comparing transanal tube/stent versus non-tube/stent, were analysed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The primary outcome was rates of AL, whereas secondary outcomes compared associated unplanned re-operation for AL and hospital length of stay (LOS).

RESULTS

Two randomized controlled trials and 13 observational studies were included, with 1714 patients receiving RT/TAS and 1741 patients without. There were 119 (7%) patients with AL in the RT/TAS group compared to 216 (12.3%) patients in the non-RT/TAS group (OR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.38-0.62, p < 0.001). There were 47 (2.9%) patients with AL complications requiring surgery in the RT/TAS group compared to 132 (8%) patients in the non-RT/TAS group (OR: 0.29, 95% CI: 0.20-0.42, p < 0.001) and no significant difference identified with the standardized mean difference (SMD) favouring the RT/TAS group for hospital LOS (SMD: -0.23, 95% CI: -0.51 to 0.06, p = 0.115).

CONCLUSION

The use of RT/TAS post restorative anterior resection for rectal cancer should be considered, given the benefits shown from this meta-analysis.

Laparoscopic anterior resection with or without transanal tube for rectal cancer patients - A multicenter randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

In rectal cancer surgery, insertion of transanal tube has been shown to have efficacy to prevent anastomotic leakage. This randomized controlled study aims to clarify the incidence of anastomotic leakage with or without transanal tube in patients with rectal cancer.

METHODS

Patients who underwent elective low anterior resection were randomly allocated to either have transanal tube insertion or not for five days after surgery. We examined the incidence of anastomotic leakage, postoperative 30-day morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

157 patients were randomized to the transanal tube group or the no-transanal tube group. Symptomatic anastomotic leakage occurred in six patients (7.6%) of the former group and eight patients (10.3%) in the latter group, without significant difference (p = 0.559). There was also no significant difference in morbidity between groups (p = 0.633) and no mortality was detected.

CONCLUSIONS

Transanal tube insertion had no significant benefit towards prevention of anastomotic leakage in rectal cancer surgery.

The possibility of a transanal tube as an alternative to diverting stoma in terms of preventing severe postoperative anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic low anterior resection

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to reveal whether a transanal tube (TAT) could act as an alternative to a diverting stoma (DS) after laparoscopic low anterior resection.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 89 consecutive rectal cancer patients whose tumors were located within 15 cm from the anal verge who underwent laparoscopic low anterior resection without a DS at our institution between May 12, 2015 and August 31, 2019 were included. All patients received a postoperative Gastrografin enema study (GES) through a TAT between the 3rd and 10th postoperative day. We planned two study protocols. From May 12, 2015 to March 31, 2017, we conducted a second operation including a DS construction immediately when radiological anastomotic leakage (rAL) was detected (Group A, n=46). From April 1, 2017 to August 31, 2019, we continued TAT drainage even if rAL was detected and repeated the GES weekly until the rAL was healed (Group B, n=43).

RESULTS

In Group A (n=46), 14 cases of rAL were included, 11 of which underwent stoma construction. The remaining 3 patients who refused stoma construction were treated conservatively. In Group B (n=43) rAL was encountered in 10, and 7 of these patients were treated successfully by TAT continuous drainage. The rate of DS in Group B (7.0%) was significantly lower than that in Group A (23.9%) (p=0.028).

CONCLUSIONS

A TAT could act as a DS to mitigate the symptoms of anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic low anterior resection.

The impact of transanal tube design for preventing anastomotic leak in anterior resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Placement of a transanal tube (TAT) into the rectum is a strategy used to attempt to prevent anastomotic leak (AL) in anterior resection surgery. There is a wide variation in materials and tube design in devices used as TATs and previous meta-analyses have not considered TAT design in their analyses. This study reviews the impact that design of TAT has on AL rates.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed with the aim of identifying studies evaluating the use of TATs for preventing AL and then defining the design of TATs. Studies were then compared in groups based on TAT design in a meta-analysis to evaluate whether design is an important variable in outcomes.

RESULTS

Thirty-three studies were included. There was a wide variety of tubes used as TATs. On meta-analysis, catheter-type TATs were associated with a substantially lower rate of AL (OR: 0.46; 95% CI 0.30, 0.68). By contrast, stent-type TATs were not associated with any reduction in the incidence of AL (OR: 1.06, 95% CI 0.50, 2.22). Catheter-type TATs were also associated with substantial reductions in the rate of reoperation (OR: 0.32; 95% CI 0.20, 0.50), whereas stent-type TATs showed no benefit in the rate of reoperation (OR: 0.79; 95% CI 0.37, 1.65).

CONCLUSIONS

Off-the-shelf catheter-type transanal tubes appeared effective in preventing AL, whereas custom-designed stent-type TATs were not demonstrated to be effective; although high quality evidence is limited. TAT design should be an important consideration in further research of the use of TATs in anterior resection surgery.

An updated meta-analysis of transanal drainage tube for prevention of anastomotic leak in anterior resection for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic leakage (AL) is one of the most serious complications after anterior resection for rectal cancer. Transanal drainage tube (TDT) placement is widely used to reduce AL, but its efficacy remains controversial. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of TDT for prevention of AL, using updated evidence.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies evaluating the effectiveness of TDT for prevention of AL after anterior resection for rectal cancer were identified by using a predefined search strategy. Meta-analysis was performed to estimate the pooled rates of AL, reoperation, anastomotic bleeding and mortality separately.

RESULTS

One RCT and ten cohort studies which including 1170 cases with TDT and 1262 cases without TDT were considered eligible for inclusion. Meta-analysis showed that the TDT group was associated with a significant lower rates of AL (RR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.31-0.58, P < 0.00001) and reoperation (RR: 0.29, 95% CI: 0.19-0.45, P < 0.00001). There was no significant difference in anastomotic bleeding rate and mortality between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

TDT placement is associated with significant lower rates of AL and reoperation, hence it is likely to be an effective method of preventing and reducing AL after rectal cancer surgery.

Rectal tube drainage reduces major anastomotic leakage after minimally invasive rectal cancer surgery

AIM

Anastomotic leakage is the most serious complication following low anterior resection for rectal cancer and is a major cause of postoperative morbidity and mortality. The object of the present study was to investigate whether rectal tube drainage can reduce anastomotic leakage after minimally invasive rectal cancer surgery.

METHOD

Three hundred and seventy-four patients who underwent laparoscopic or robotic LAR for tumours located ≤ 15 cm above the anal verge between 1 April 2012 and 31 October 2014 were assessed retrospectively. Of these, 107 with intermediate risk of anastomotic leakage received transanal rectal tube drainage. The rectal tube group was matched by propensity score analysis with patients not having rectal tube drainage, giving 204 patients in the study. Covariates for propensity score analysis included age, sex, body mass index, tumour height from the anal verge and preoperative chemoradiation.

RESULTS

Patient demographics, tumour location, preoperative chemoradiation and operative results were similar between the two groups. The overall leakage rate was 10.8% (22/204), with no significant difference between the rectal tube group (9.8%) and the nonrectal tube group (11.8%, P = 0.652). Of the patients with anastomotic leakage, major leakage requiring reoperation developed in 11.8% of those without and 3.9% of those with a rectal tube. On multivariate analysis, age over 65 years and nonuse of a rectal tube were found to be independent risk factors for major anastomotic leakage.

CONCLUSION

Rectal tube placement may be a safe and effective method of reducing the rate of major anastomotic leakage, alleviating the clinical course of leakage following minimally invasive rectal cancer surgery.

Comparative study between transanal tube and loop ileostomy in low anterior resection for mid rectal cancer: a retrospective single center trial

Purpose

To investigate the efficacy and safety of the transanal tube (TAT) in preventing anastomotic leak (AL) in rectal cancer surgery.

Methods

Clinical data of the patients who underwent curative surgery for mid rectal cancer from February 2010 to February 2014 were reviewed retrospectively. Rectal cancers arising 5 to 10 cm above the anal verge were selected. Patients were divided into the ileostomy, TAT, or no-protection groups. Postoperative complications including AL and postoperative course were compared.

Results

We included 137 patients: 67, 35, and 35 patients were included in the ileostomy, TAT, and no-protection groups, respectively. Operation time was longer in the ileostomy group (P = 0.029), and more estimated blood loss was observed (P = 0.018). AL occurred in 5 patients (7.5%) in the ileostomy group, 1 patients (2.9%) in the TAT group, and 6 patients (17.1%) in the no-protection group (P = 0.125). Patients in the ileostomy group resumed diet more than 1 day earlier than those in the other groups (P = 0.000). Patients in the no-protection group had about 1 or 2 days longer postoperative hospital stay (P = 0.048). The ileostomy group showed higher late complication rates than the other groups as complications associated with the stoma itself or repair operation developed (P = 0.019).

Conclusion

For mid rectal cancer surgery, the TAT supports anastomotic site protection and diverts ileostomy-related complications. Further large scale randomized controlled studies are needed to gain more evidence and expand the range of TAT usage.

Safe anastomosis in laparoscopic and robotic low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a narrative review and outcomes study from an expert tertiary center

Anastomotic leak and stricture formation are recognised complications of colorectal anastomoses. Surgical technique has been implicated in its aetiology. The use of innovative anastomotic techniques and technical standardisation may facilitate risk modification. Early detection of complications using novel diagnostic tests can lead to reduction in delay of diagnosis as long as a standard system is used. We review our practice for creation a safe anastomosis for minimal invasive rectal cancer resection. Several technical points discussed and evaluated based on the evidence. We propose several recommendations aiming to standardize the technique and to minimize anastomotic complications.

Can intraluminal devices prevent or reduce colorectal anastomotic leakage: A review

Colorectal anastomotic leakage is a serious complication of colorectal surgery, leading to high morbidity and mortality rates. In recent decades, many strategies aimed at lowering the incidence of anastomotic leakage have been examined. The focus of this review will be on mechanical aids protecting the colonic anastomosis against leakage. A literature search was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Collaborative library for all papers related to prevention of anastomotic leakage by placement of a device in the colon. Devices were categorised as decompression devices, intracolonic devices, and biodegradable devices. A decompression device functions by keeping the anal sphincter open, thereby lowering the intraluminal pressure and lowering the pressure on the anastomosis. Intracolonic devices do not prevent the formation of dehiscence. However, they prevent the faecal load from contacting the anastomotic site, thereby preventing leakage of faeces into the peritoneal cavity. Many attempts have been made to find a device that decreases the incidence of AL; however, to date, none of the devices have been widely accepted.

Colectomy in patients with acute colitis: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

For patients with acute colitis, the decision when and how to operate is difficult in most cases. It was the aim of this systematic review to analyze early mortality and morbidity of colectomy for severe acute colitis in order to identify opportunities to improve perioperative treatment and outcome.

METHODS

A systematic review of the available literature in the Medline and PubMed databases from 1975 to 2007 was performed. All articles were assessed methodologically; the articles of poor methodological quality were excluded. Articles on laparoscopic colectomy for acute colitis were analyzed separately.

RESULTS

In total, 29 studies met the criteria for the systematic review, describing a total of 2,714 patients, 1,257 of whom were operated on in an acute setting, i.e., urgent or emergency colectomy. Reported in-hospital mortality was 8.0%; the 30-day mortality was 5.2%. Morbidity was 50.8%. The majority of complications were of infectious and thromboembolic nature. Over the last three decades, there was a shift in indications from toxic megacolon, from 71.1% in 1975-1984 to 21.6% in 1995-2005, to severe acute colitis not responding to conservative treatment, from 16.5% in 1975-1984 to 58.1% in 1995-2007. Mortality decreased from 10.0% to 1.8%. Morbidity remained high, exceeding 40% in the last decade. Mortality after laparoscopic surgery was 0.6%. Complication rate varies from 16-37%.

CONCLUSION

Colectomy for acute colitis is complicated by considerable morbidity. The incidence of adverse outcome has substantially decreased over the last three decades, but further improvements are still required. The retrospective nature of the included studies allows for a considerable degree of selection bias that limits robust and clinically sound conclusions about both conventional and laparoscopic surgery.