Extraperitonealization of the anastomosis and sacral drain in restorative surgery for rectal carcinoma: a safety mechanism in the absence of a covering stoma

Outcomes of laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection in low rectal cancer using different pelvic drainages

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to establish the feasibility and efficiency of different pelvic drainage routes after laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection (LAPR) for rectal cancer by assessing short-term outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Clinicopathological data of 76 patients undergoing LAPR for very low rectal cancer were reviewed retrospectively between June 2005 and June 2014. Outcomes were evaluated considering short- term results.

RESULTS

Of 76 relevant patients at our institution in the period of study, trans-perineal drainage of the pelvic cavity was performed in 17 cases. Compared with the trans-perineal group, the length of hospital stay was shorter in the trans-abdominal group, while the duration of drainage and the infection rates of the perineal wounds between two groups showed no significant differences.

CONCLUSIONS

The outcomes of this study suggest that trans-abdominal drainage of pelvic cavity is a reliable and feasible procedure, the duration of drainage, infection rates and the healing rates of the perineal wounds being acceptable. Trans-abdominal drainage has a more satisfactory effect after laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for rectal carcinoma.

Standardized pelvic drainage of anastomotic leaks following anterior resection without diversional stomas

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic leakage is a serious complication in rectal cancer surgery. More than one third of rectal cancer patients with low anterior resection (LAR) will receive defunctional stomas during primary operation.

METHODS

Six hundred thirty-nine consecutive rectal cancer patients, whose tumors were located 5 to 12 cm from the anal verge, were treated with LAR. A standardized pelvic drainage for all these patients and selective irrigation for patients with leakage were conducted, and defunctional stoma was used as a salvage modality. All the anastomoses were all extraperitonealized during primary operations.

RESULTS

The anastomotic leakage rate was 7.04%. Male gender and location of tumor were found to be risk factors for leakage in patients with LAR. The overall stoma rate was 1.88%. Nearly 75% of leakage could be cured by irrigation-suction without surgical intervention. Severe complications, such as peritonitis, fistula, and obstruction, were strong predictors of irrigation failure.

CONCLUSIONS

Extraperitonealized anastomosis and pelvic drainage obtained a very low rate of defunctional stoma for LAR. Pelvic irrigation-suction was an effective modality to resolve anastomotic leakage.

Anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection for rectal cancer: facts, obscurity, and fiction

The subject of anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection (LAR) for rectal cancer remains controversial. Risk factors have been discussed in several studies but the findings are often inconclusive. This review evaluates these studies and separates the known risk factors into those that are well documented, those that are obsolete, and those that require further research. We searched the Medline and PubMed databases using the keywords: "leakage," "low anterior resection," "rectal cancer," "risk factors," and their combinations. There were no language or publication year restrictions. References in published papers were also reviewed. Each risk factor was evaluated and discussed separately. The evidence suggests that low anastomoses are more prone to leakage. Other well-documented risk factors are male sex, smoking, and preoperative malnutrition. Routine mobilization of the splenic flexure and the use of a J-pouch seem to reduce the leakage rate. The effect of preoperative chemo-radiotherapy is under scrutiny. The indications for a protective stoma remain debatable. Omentoplasty, bowel preparation, the use of a drain, and tumor stage do not seem to affect the leakage rate. The type of operation (open or laparoscopic) and anastomosis (hand-sewn or stapled) is not crucial.

Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after resection for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Controversy still exists concerning the impact of patient and tumor characteristics on anastomotic dehiscence after resection for rectal cancer.

METHODS

Between January 1986 and July 2006, 472 patients underwent curative rectal resection. Patient and tumor characteristics, details of treatment, and postoperative results were recorded prospectively. Univariate and multivariate analysis were applied to identify risk factors for anastomotic leakage.

RESULTS

In our patients, the anastomotic leak rate was 10.4% (49 of 472 patients), and mortality was 2.2% (1 of 49 patients). In univariate analysis, tumor diameter and absence of a protective stoma were associated with increased anastomotic leak rate, whereas American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score and tumor localization showed borderline significance. In multivariate analysis, tumor diameter, tumor localization, and absence of a protective stoma were significantly associated with anastomotic leakage.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with large and low lying rectal tumors are at high risk for anastomotic leakage. A protective stoma significantly decreases the rate of clinical leaks and subsequent reoperation after low anterior resection.

Anastomotic leakage following low anterior resection: results of a standardized diagnostic and therapeutic approach

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

This study analyzed the results of a standardized approach in anastomotic leakage following low anterior resection for rectal cancer without performance of a protective ileostomy during the primary operation.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The study included all 306 patients with rectal cancer electively undergoing low anterior resection with retroperitonealization of the anastomosis over 9 years. The diagnostic procedure for anastomotic leakage included serum laboratory investigations and abdominal CT together with contrast enema. Minor leakages, i.e., small leakages and pelvic abscess, were treated with rectoscopic lavage and/or CT-guided drainage of the abscess, respectively. Major leakage was defined as broad insufficiency with or without septicemia. Nonseptic patients were treated by ileostomy and rectoscopic treatment. In septic patients a revision of the anastomosis with loop ileostomy was performed.

RESULTS

Anastomotic leakage was diagnosed in 30 patients (overall 9.8%; 12 major, 18 minor leakages). Common clinical signs were pelvic pain and fever. No patient developed a peritonitis. The most accurate diagnostic instrument was CT (96.7%).

CONCLUSION

Retroperitonealization appears to prevent peritonitis in patients with anastomotic leakage following low anterior resection. A differential treatment leads to good results in terms of mortality and anorectal function.

Value of a protective stoma in low anterior resections for rectal cancer

INTRODUCTION

Anastomotic leakage is a major problem in colorectal surgery and in particular in operations for low rectal cancer. The present study investigates the question whether a protective stoma can reduce the (clinical and radiologic) anastomotic leakage rate and/or the rate of leakage requiring surgery.

METHODS

The investigation took the form of a prospective multicenter study involving 75 German hospitals and was performed between January 1, 1999, and December 31, 1999. A comparison was made of the postoperative results of procedures performed with and those performed without a protective stoma in patients undergoing low anterior rectal resection. In addition, logistic regression using the target criteria, overall anastomotic leakage and anastomotic leakage requiring surgery, was applied.

RESULTS

Among the 3,695 operations performed for carcinoma of the rectum or colon, 482 were low anterior resections. In 334 patients (69.3 percent) no protective stoma was constructed, whereas 148 (30.7 percent) received such protection. Age, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status, and body mass index were identical in both groups. In the group receiving a protective stoma, however, neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy was more common, the tumors were lower-and thus the total mesorectal excision rate higher, the intraoperative complication rate was higher, and the duration of the operation was longer. The differences were all significant. The major criterion (overall anastomotic leakage rate) was identical in the two groups, but the rate of leakage requiring surgery was significantly lower in patients receiving a protective stoma (p = 0.028). The logistic regression revealed that use of a protective stoma is a predictor of protection against anastomotic leakage requiring surgery. The distance of the tumor from the anal verge and the duration of the operation are further predictors.

CONCLUSION

The particular benefit of a covering stoma is reduction in the rate of leaks requiring surgery and thus in the severe consequences of an anastomotic leakage.