Can a Local Drainage Salvage a Failed Colorectal or Coloanal Anastomosis? A Prospective Cohort of 54 Patients

Management of acute and chronic pelvic sepsis after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer-a 10-year experience of a national referral centre

AIM

Uncontrolled pelvic sepsis following rectal cancer surgery may lead to dramatic consequences with significant impact on patients' quality of life. The aim of this retrospective observational study is to evaluate management of pelvic sepsis after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer at a national referral centre.

METHOD

Referred patients with acute or chronic pelvic sepsis after sphincter preserving rectal cancer resection, with the year of referral between 2010 and 2014 (A) or between 2015 and 2020 (B), were included. The main outcome was control of pelvic sepsis at the end of follow-up, with healed anastomosis with restored faecal stream (RFS) as co-primary outcome.

RESULTS

In total 136 patients were included: 49 in group A and 87 in group B. After a median follow-up of 82 months (interquartile range 35-100) in group A and 42 months (interquartile range 22-60) in group B, control of pelvic sepsis was achieved in all patients who received endoscopic vacuum assisted surgical closure (7/7 and 2/2), in 91% (19/21) and 89% (31/35) of patients who received redo anastomosis (P = 1.000) and in 100% (18/18) and 95% (41/43) of patients who received intersphincteric resection (P = 1.000), respectively. Restorative procedures resulted in a healed anastomosis with RFS in 61% (17/28) of patients in group A and 68% (25/37) of patients in group B (P = 0.567).

CONCLUSION

High rates of success can be achieved with surgical salvage of pelvic sepsis in a dedicated tertiary referral centre, without significant differences over time. In well selected and motivated patients a healed anastomosis with RFS can be achieved in the majority.

Effect of transanal drainage tube on prevention of anastomotic leakage after anterior rectal cancer surgery taking indwelling time into consideration: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Placement of an indwelling transanal drainage tube (TDT) to prevent anastomotic leakage (AL) after anterior rectal cancer surgery has become a routine choice for surgeons in the recent years. However, the specific indwelling time of the TDT has not been explored. We performed this meta-analysis and considered the indwelling time a critical factor in re-analyzing the effectiveness of TDT placement in prevention of AL after anterior rectal cancer surgery.

Methods

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies which evaluated the effectiveness of TDT in prevention of AL after rectal cancer surgery and considered the indwelling time of TDT were identified using a predesigned search strategy in databases up to November 2022. This meta-analysis was performed to estimate the pooled AL rates (Overall and different AL grades) and reoperation rates at different TDT indwelling times and stoma statuses.

Results

Three RCTs and 15 cohort studies including 2381 cases with TDT and 2494 cases without TDT were considered eligible for inclusion. Our meta-analysis showed that the indwelling time of TDT for ≥5-days was associated with a significant reduction (TDT vs. Non-TDT) in overall AL (OR=0.46,95% CI 0.34-0.60, p<0.01), grade A+B AL (OR=0.64, 95% CI 0.42-0.97, p=0.03), grade C AL (OR=0.35, 95% CI 0.24-0.53, p<0.01), overall reoperation rate (OR=0.36, 95%CI 0.24-0.53, p<0.01) and that in patients without a prophylactic diverting stoma (DS) (OR=0.24, 95%CI 0.14-0.41, p<0.01). There were no statistically significant differences in any of the abovementioned indicators (p>0.05) when the indwelling time of TDT was less than 5 days.

Conclusion

Extending the postoperative indwelling time of TDT to 5 days may reduce the overall AL and the need for reoperation in patients without a prophylactic DS.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023407451, identifier CRD42023407451.

Comparison of proactive and conventional treatment of anastomotic leakage in rectal cancer surgery: a multicentre retrospective cohort series

PURPOSE

Comparative studies on efficacy of treatment strategies for anastomotic leakage (AL) after low anterior resection (LAR) are almost non-existent. This study aimed to compare different proactive and conservative treatment approaches for AL after LAR.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included all patients with AL after LAR in three university hospitals. Different treatment approaches were compared, including a pairwise comparison of conventional treatment and endoscopic vacuum-assisted surgical closure (EVASC). Primary outcomes were healed and functional anastomosis rates at end of follow-up.

RESULTS

Overall, 103 patients were included, of which 59 underwent conventional treatment and 23 EVASC. Median number of reinterventions was 1 after conventional treatment, compared to 7 after EVASC (p < 0.01). Median follow-up was 39 and 25 months, respectively. Healed anastomosis rate was 61% after conventional treatment, compared to 78% after EVASC (p = 0.139). Functional anastomosis rate was higher after EVASC, compared to conventional treatment (78% vs. 54%, p = 0.045). Early initiation of EVASC in the first week after primary surgery resulted in better functional anastomosis rate compared to later initiation (100% vs. 55%, p = 0.008).

CONCLUSION

Proactive treatment of AL consisting of EVASC resulted in improved healed and functional anastomosis rates for AL after LAR for rectal cancer, compared to conventional treatment. If EVASC was initiated within the first week after index surgery, a 100% functional anastomosis rate was achievable.

Prediction model of anastomotic leakage after anterior resection for rectal cancer-based on nomogram and multivariate analysis with 1995 patients

BACKGROUND

Postoperative anastomotic leakage for rectal cancer shows higher morbidity with grievous concomitant symptoms. Accurate assessment of the incidence of anastomotic leakage, multivariate analysis, and establishment of a scientific prediction model can be useful to dispose of its possible severe clinical consequences.

METHODS

This retrospective study collected 1995 consecutive patients who underwent anterior resection of rectal cancer with primary anastomosis at Northern Jiangsu People's Hospital between January 2016 and June 2022. Independent risk factors associated with anastomotic leakage were analyzed by univariate and multivariate logistic regression. The chosen independent risk factors were used to construct a nomogram risk prediction model whose availability was evaluated by using a bootstrapped-concordance index and calibration plots with R software.

RESULTS

A total of 1995 patients who underwent anterior resection for rectal cancer were included while 120 patients were diagnosed with anastomotic leakage, an incidence of 6.0%. Univariate analysis and its concomitant multivariate cox regression analysis indicated that independent risk factors associated with anastomotic leakage included male gender (odds ratio (OR) = 2.873), diabetes (OR = 2.480), neoadjuvant therapy (OR = 5.283), tumor's distance from the anus verge < 5 cm (OR = 5.824), tumor size ≥ 5 cm (OR = 4.888), and the blood lose > 50 mL (OR = 9.606).We established a nomogram prediction model with proper applicability (concordance index, 0.83) and the calibration curve to justify its predictive ability that the predicted occurrence probability keeps a high degree of consistency with the actual occurrence probability. Meanwhile, the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was 0.83.

CONCLUSIONS

The characteristics of patients and tumor surgery-related conditions can affect the incidence of anastomotic leakage. However, whether the surgical method will affect morbidity is still controversial. Our nomogram can be seen as an effective instrument to predict anastomotic leakage after anterior resection for rectal cancer precisely.

Endoscopic vacuum-assisted surgical closure (EVASC) of anastomotic defects after low anterior resection for rectal cancer; lessons learned

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic vacuum-assisted surgical closure (EVASC) is an emerging treatment for AL, and early initiation of treatment seems to be crucial. The objective of this study was to report on the efficacy of EVASC for anastomotic leakage (AL) after rectal cancer resection and determine factors for success.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included all rectal cancer patients treated with EVASC for a leaking primary anastomosis after LAR at a tertiary referral centre (July 2012-April 2020). Early initiation (≤ 21 days) or late initiation of the EVASC protocol was compared. Primary outcomes were healed and functional anastomosis at end of follow-up.

RESULTS

Sixty-two patients were included, of whom 38 were referred. Median follow-up was 25 months (IQR 14-38). Early initiation of EVASC (≤ 21 days) resulted in a higher rate of healed anastomosis (87% vs 59%, OR 4.43 [1.25-15.9]) and functional anastomosis (80% vs 56%, OR 3.11 [1.00-9.71]) if compared to late initiation. Median interval from AL diagnosis to initiation of EVASC was significantly shorter in the early group (11 days (IQR 6-15) vs 70 days (IQR 39-322), p < 0.001). A permanent end-colostomy was created in 7% and 28%, respectively (OR 0.18 [0.04-0.93]). In 17 patients with a non-defunctioned anastomosis, and AL diagnosis within 2 weeks, EVASC resulted in 100% healed and functional anastomosis.

CONCLUSION

Early initiation of EVASC for anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer resection yields high rates of healed and functional anastomosis. EVASC showed to be progressively more successful with the implementation of highly selective diversion and early diagnosis of the leak.

Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after anterior resection for rectal cancer (RALAR study): A nationwide retrospective study of the Italian Society of Surgical Oncology Colorectal Cancer Network Collaborative Group

AIM

Anastomotic leakage after restorative surgery for rectal cancer shows high morbidity and related mortality. Identification of risk factors could change operative planning, with indications for stoma construction. This retrospective multicentre study aims to assess the anastomotic leak rate, identify the independent risk factors and develop a clinical prediction model to calculate the probability of leakage.

METHODS

The study used data from 24 Italian referral centres of the Colorectal Cancer Network of the Italian Society of Surgical Oncology. Patients were classified into two groups, AL (anastomotic leak) or NoAL (no anastomotic leak). The effect of patient-, disease-, treatment- and postoperative outcome-related factors on anastomotic leak after univariable and multivariable analysis was measured.

RESULTS

A total of 5398 patients were included, 552 in group AL and 4846 in group NoAL. The overall incidence of leaks was 10.2%, with a mean time interval of 6.8 days. The 30-day leak-related mortality was 2.6%. Sex, body mass index, tumour location, type of approach, number of cartridges employed, weight loss, clinical T stage and combined multiorgan resection were identified as independent risk factors. The stoma did not reduce the leak rate but significantly decreased leak severity and reoperation rate. A nomogram with a risk score (RALAR score) was developed to predict anastomotic leak risk at the end of resection.

CONCLUSIONS

While a defunctioning stoma did not affect the leak risk, it significantly reduced its severity. Surgeons should recognize independent risk factors for leaks at the end of rectal resection and could calculate a risk score to select high-risk patients eligible for protective stoma construction.

Dealing with Complications of Colorectal Surgery Using the Transanal Approach-When and How?

The transanal approach is a new and exciting addition to the surgeons' repertoire to deal with complications after colorectal surgery. Improved exposure, accessibility, and visibility greatly facilitate adequate dissection of the affected area with potential increase in effectiveness and reduced morbidity. An essential component in salvaging anastomotic leaks of low colorectal, coloanal, or ileoanal anastomoses is early diagnosis and early treatment, especially when starting with endoscopic vacuum therapy, followed by early surgical closure (endoscopic vacuum-assisted surgical closure). Redo surgery using a transanal minimally invasive surgery platform for chronic leaks after total mesorectal excision surgery or surgical causes of pouch failure successfully mitigates limited visibility and exposure by using a bottom-up approach.

Treatment Modalities for Anastomotic Leakage in Rectal Cancer Surgery

Despite advances in rectal cancer surgery, anastomotic leakage (AL) remains a common complication with a significant impact on patient recovery, health care costs, and oncologic outcomes. The spectrum of clinical severity associated with AL is broad, and treatment options are diverse with highly variable practices across the colorectal community. To be effective, the treatment must match not only the patient's current status but also the type of leak, the surgeon's skill, and the resources available. In this chapter, we will review the current and emergent treatment modalities for AL after rectal cancer surgery.

Can end-to-end anastomosis reduce the risks of anastomotic leak compared to side-to-end anastomosis? A comparative study of 518 consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for low- or mid-rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

After laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) for low or mid-rectal cancer, we observed several cases of anastomotic leakage (AL) in patients with side-to-end anastomosis (STE). Thus, from December 2018, we routinely performed end-to-end anastomosis (ETE). The aim of this study was to assess if this new strategy changed AL and chronic pelvic sepsis rates in our department.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted on all the patients who underwent a laparoscopic rectal resection with TME and sphincter-saving surgery for mid- and low-rectal adenocarcinoma from January 2006 to December 2019. A comparative study between STE and routine ETE was performed. The primary outcome was the assessment of postoperative AL rate. The secondary outcomes were: (a) overall morbidity rate; (c) severe morbidity rate defined by a Clavien-Dindo score > 3; (c) chronic leak rate.

RESULTS

Five hundred eighteen patients underwent TME: STE was performed in 394 cases (76%) and ETE in 124 but for the first 66 cases only if STE was impossible (i.e., too short colon, obese patients). AL rates for STE were 57/204 (23%) after stapled colorectal anastomosis (CRA) and 34/190 (18%) after manual coloanal anastomosis (CAA). Since December 2018, routine ETE was performed in 58 cases. The AL rate for routine ETE was 3/24 (12%) for CRA, and 2/34 (6%) for CAA: thus, The AL rate dropped from 23% (91/394) after STE to 9% (5/58) after routine ETE (p = 0.0005). After a mean follow-up of 43 months (6-156), incidence of chronic AL was 68/394 (17%) after STE and 15/117 (13%) after ETE (p = 0.32). In the group of ETE with chronic AL, 11 patients (73%) spontaneously healed and stoma reversal was possible, whereas this happened in only 20 patients (29%) after STE (p = 0.0025).

CONCLUSIONS

ETE seems to be associated with a significantly lower rate of AL and higher rate of spontaneous healing after chronic AL than STE.

IMARI: multi-Interventional program for prevention and early Management of Anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection in Rectal cancer patIents: rationale and study protocol

Background

Anastomotic leakage (AL) is still a common and feared complication after low anterior resection (LAR) for rectal cancer. The multifactorial pathophysiology of AL and lack of standardised treatment options requires a multi-modal approach to improve long-term anastomotic integrity. The objective of the IMARI-trial is to determine whether the one-year anastomotic integrity rate in patients undergoing LAR for rectal cancer can be improved using a multi-interventional program.

Methods

IMARI is a multicentre prospective clinical effectiveness trial, whereby current local practice (control cohort) will be evaluated, and subsequently compared to results after implementation of the multi-interventional program (intervention cohort). Patients undergoing LAR for rectal cancer will be included. The multi-interventional program includes three preventive interventions (mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics, tailored full splenic flexure mobilization and intraoperative fluorescence angiography using indocyanine green) combined with a standardised pathway for early detection and active management of AL. The primary outcome is anastomotic integrity, confirmed by CT-scan at one year postoperatively. Secondary outcomes include incidence of AL, protocol compliance and association with AL, temporary and permanent stoma rate, reintervention rate, quality of life and functional outcome. Microbiome analysis will be conducted to investigate the role of the rectal microbiome in AL.

In a Dutch nationwide study, the AL rate was 20%, with anastomotic integrity of 90% after one year. Based on an expected reduction of AL due to the preventive approaches of 50%, and increase of anastomotic integrity by a standardised pathway for early detection and active management of AL, we hypothesised that the anastomotic integrity rate will increase from 90 to 97% at one year. An improvement of 7% in anastomotic integrity at one year was considered clinically relevant. A total number of 488 patients (244 per cohort) are needed to detect this difference, with 80% statistical power.

Discussion

The IMARI-trial is designed to evaluate whether a multi-interventional program can improve long-term anastomotic integrity after rectal cancer surgery. The uniqueness of IMARI lies in the multi-modal design that addresses the multifactorial pathophysiology for prevention, and a standardised pathway for early detection and active treatment of AL.

Trial registration

Trialregister.nl (NL8261), January 2020.

Long-term functional results and quality of life after redo rectal surgery: delayed versus immediate colo-anal anastomosis

AIM

To compare the functional results and quality of life after delayed colo-anal anastomosis (DCAA) or immediate colo-anal anastomosis (ICAA) following redo rectal surgery.

METHOD

Twenty-six patients with DCAA between 2014 and 2018 were studied retrospectively (group A). Two control groups were used: 26 ICAA after redo surgery (group B) and 52 colo-anal anastomosis (CAA) after anterior resection (group C). Control groups were matched for age, sex, pelvic radiotherapy and time to surgery. Low Anterior Resection Syndrome (LARS) and Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index (GIQLI) scores were used to assess function and quality of life.

RESULTS

The indications for surgery were comparable for groups A and B: anastomotic failure with chronic sepsis (38% vs 50%, P = 0.40), vaginal fistula (42% vs 42%, P = 1) and urinary fistula (20% vs 8%, P = 0.22) as well as the number of previous abdominal operations (1.3 ± 0.9 vs 1.1 ± 0.6, P = 0.19). The median LARS score in the first 2 years was 30 [interquartile range (IQR) 14-41] for group A, 23 (IQR 0-41) for group B and 22 (IQR 11-37) for group C. After 2 years, the median LARS score improved in each group [A, 21 (IQR 11-35); B, 18 (IQR 5-26); C, 13 (IQR 9-20)], but was still high in group A. There was a tendency toward more major LARS in group A than in group B (46% vs 27%; P = 0.149). There was no difference in the mean GIQLI score between groups A and B (120 ± 16 vs 117 ± 19; P = 0.53) at the end of the follow-up period. Time after stoma closure (< 2 years) and previous radiotherapy were risk factors for major LARS in all populations.

CONCLUSION

ICAA should be the procedure of choice where possible in redo surgery as it has better functional outcomes.