Effect of the transanal drainage tube on preventing anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

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

BACKGROUNDS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO: CRD42023427914.

Clinical Impact of Transanal Drainage Tube on Anastomosis Leakage Following Minimally Invasive Resection Without Diverting Stoma in Patients With Rectal Cancer: A Propensity Score-matched Analysis

OBJECTIVES

As one of the most serious complications of rectal cancer (RC) surgery, preventing anastomotic leakage (AL) is crucial. Several studies have suggested a positive role of the transanal drainage tube (TaDT) in AL prevention. However, whether TaDT is beneficial for AL in patients with RC remains controversial. The present study aimed to evaluate the clinical impact of TaDT on AL following minimally invasive resection without diverting stoma (DS) in patients with RC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 392 consecutive patients with RC who had undergone minimally invasive resection without DS between 2010 and 2021. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to reduce selection bias. AL was classified as grade A, B, or C.

RESULTS

A TaDT was used in 214 patients overall. After PSM, we enrolled 316 patients (n=158 in each group). Before PSM, significant group-dependent differences were observed in terms of age, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status, and the use of antiplatelet/anticoagulant agents. The frequency of AL was 7.3% in the overall cohort and was significantly lower in the TaDT group (3.7%) than in the non-TaDT group (11.8%). The rate of grade B AL was significantly lower in the TaDT group than in the non-TaDT group (before PSM, P <0.01; after PSM, P =0.02). However, no significant differences between groups were found for grade C AL. Moreover, multivariate analysis identified the lack of a TaDT as an independent risk factor for AL in the overall and matched cohorts [before PSM, odds ratio, 3.64, P <0.01; after PSM, odds ratio, 2.91, P =0.02].

CONCLUSION

These results indicated that TaDT may play a beneficial role in preventing AL, particularly of grade B, for patients with RC undergoing minimally invasive resection without DS. However, further randomized controlled trials, including patient-reported outcomes, are still needed to understand better the role of TaDT in preventing ALs in patients with RC undergoing minimally invasive resection without DS.

Clinical efficacy of anastomotic reinforcement suture in preventing anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Anastomotic leakage (AL) is a common postoperative complication of rectal cancer, with an incidence of about 10%, and the efficacy of reinforced sutures for preventing AL remains contentious. This study investigated the safety and effectiveness of reinforcement sutures for preventing AL after rectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

The present authors conducted a systematic search in the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Sinomed, Web of Science, Wanfang, VIP, and CNKI databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized studies up to June 2023. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of anastomotic reinforcement sutures after rectal cancer surgery. The primary outcome measures were AL, anastomotic bleeding, and infection rates.

RESULTS

Eleven articles (1921 subjects) were analyzed, with 912 and 1009 cases in the reinforced and unreinforced suture groups, respectively. The reinforced suture group showed a lower AL incidence (odds ratio [OR]=0.25, 95% CI 0.17-0.37, P< 0.00001), lower infection rate (OR=0.41, 95%CI 0.19-0.89, P<0.05), shorter hospital stay (mean difference [MD]=-0.57, 95%CI -1.15-0.00, P≤0.05), and earlier anal exhaust (MD=-0.12, 95%CI -0.23-0.00, P<0.05). However, the operative time (MD=18.25, 95% CI 12.20-24.30, P<0.00001) was longer for reinforced sutures than for unreinforced sutures. There were no significant differences between the suture techniques in intraoperative blood loss MD=2.74, 95% CI -4.50-9.97, P>0.05), incidence of anastomotic bleeding (OR=0.49, 95%CI 0.12-1.97, P>0.05), and incidence of intestinal obstruction (OR=0.65, 95%CI 0.27-1.61, P>0.05).

CONCLUSION

Existing articles indicate that anastomotic reinforcement sutures can significantly reduce AL incidence. However, this conclusion still requires confirmation based on multicentre, high-quality RCTs with large sample sizes.

The effect of reinforcing sutures and trans-anal drainage tube on the outcome of laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer: propensity score‑matched analysis

OBJECTIVES

Laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer is currently the predominant treatment modality for rectal tumors, with an ongoing focus on reducing the incidence of postoperative complications. In an effort to decrease the occurrence of anastomotic leakage, two additional steps worth considering are reinforcing the anastomosis with a barbed suture and retaining an anal drain as part of the procedure. The results of the operation were analyzed by comparing them to cases where the anastomosis was performed with a stapler alone.

METHODS

This study retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent laparoscopic radical rectal cancer surgery between July 2020 and March 2023. The patients were categorized into three cohorts based on the postoperative management following instrumented anastomosis: cohort A, the instrumented anastomosis alone group; cohort B, the reinforced suture group; and cohort C, the reinforced suture and indwelling transanal drainage tube group. Propensity score matching was performed twice in a 1:1 ratio, comparing cohort B to cohort A and cohort C to cohort B. The objective was to compare the benefits and drawbacks among the different groups in terms of operative time, postoperative outcomes and operative costs.

RESULTS

529 patients with laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer were eligible for inclusion. the instrumented anastomosis alone group, reinforced suture group and the reinforced suture and indwelling transanal drainage tube group were performed in 205 patients, 198 patients and 126 patients, respectively. Cohort A and Cohort B differed in three variables after PSM: total operative time (p = 0.018), postoperative hospital stay (p < 0.001) and incidence of anastomotic leakage (p = 0.038). Cohort B had a longer total operative time, shorter postoperative hospital stay and a lower incidence of anastomotic leakage. Similarly, cohort C had less postoperative drainage (P = 0.01) and a longer postoperative hospital stay (P = 0.003) when cohort B and cohort C were matched for propensity scores. There was no significant difference in the cost of surgery between the three cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

The incorporation of barbed suture reinforcement significantly reduces the occurrence of postoperative anastomotic leakage in rectal cancer surgeries. On the other hand, although trans-anal drainage was used as an additional measure to the reinforcement suture of the anastomosis, the utilization of trans-anal drainage tubes does not demonstrate a significant improvement in surgical outcomes.

The analysis of fecal calprotectin as a diagnostic marker for anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer surgery: a pilot study

A prospective pilot study was conducted on 11 patients with rectal cancer to investigate fecal calprotectin (FC) as a diagnostic tool for detecting anastomotic leakage (AL) after low anterior resection. Among the 11 patients, 1 patient (9.1%) experienced AL (Clavien-Dindo Grade IIIa). During the post-operative course until post-operative day (POD) 5, the white blood cell count of the patient with AL was within the normal range. The C-reactive protein level in the AL and non-AL groups showed a similar time course. On the other hand, the FC level in patient with AL dramatically increased on POD5, while the FC level of the non-AL group remained relatively stable. There was no significant correlation between the preoperative FC level and the tumor circumference rate, tumor size, depth of invasion or stage. This pilot study showed the possibility of FC as a useful diagnostic tool for the detection of AL after low anterior resection for rectal cancer.

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

BACKGROUND

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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