Endoscopic repair of anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection for rectal cancer: A systematic review

Reconstruction, oversewing, or taking the anastomosis down - which surgical intervention is most potent in the treatment of anastomotic leaks following colorectal resections?

PURPOSE

Anastomotic leak (AL) following colorectal resections can be treated interventionally. However, most cases require surgical intervention. Thus, several surgical techniques are available, which intend to affect the further course positively. The aim of this retrospective analysis is to determine which surgical technique proves to have the biggest potential in reducing the morbidity and mortality as well as to minimize the need of re-interventions after AL.

METHODS

All patients with a history of AL following colorectal resection between 2008 and 2020 were analyzed. Patient's outcomes following surgical treatment of AL, including morbidity and mortality, clinical and para-clinical (laboratory examinations, ultrasound, and CT-scan) detection of AL recurrence, re-intervention rate, and the length of hospital stay were documented and correlated with the surgical technique used (e.g. simply over-sewing the AL, over-sewing the AL with the construction of a protective ileostomy, resection and reconstruction of the anastomosis, peritoneal lavage and transanal drainage, or taking the anastomosis down and constructing an end stoma).

RESULTS

A total of 2,724 colorectal resections were documented. Grade C AL occurred in 92 (4.4% AL occurrence-rate) and 31 (7.2% AL occurrence-rate) cases following colon and rectal resections, respectively. The anastomosis was not preservable in 52 and 17 cases following colon and rectal resections, respectively. Therefore, the anastomosis had been taken down and an end-stoma had been constructed. Over-sewing the AL with the construction of a protective ileostomy had the highest anastomosis preservation rate (14 of 18 cases) and lowest re-intervention rate (mean value of 1.5 re-interventions) following colon and rectal resections (7 of 9 cases; mean value, 1.5 re-interventions).

CONCLUSION

In cases where an AL is preservable, over-sewing the anastomosis and constructing a protective ileostomy has the greatest potential for positive short-term outcomes following colorectal resections.

Assessment of the efficacy of Handmade Vacuum-Assisted Sponge Drain for Treatment of Anastomotic leakage after Low Anterior Rectal Resection

Anastomotic leakage is one of the major complications of colorectal surgery, which might lead to reoperation, increased hospital stays, further intervention and mortality. Vacuum-assisted closure by devices such as Endo-SPONGE® produced by (B-Braun Medical B.V.) is currently being used to treat leakage and fistula. In this study, we aimed to assess the handmade vacuum-assisted sponge drain for anastomotic leakage following low anterior resection. This prospective study included 22 patients who had undergone sponge drain placement to treat anastomotic leakage. All patients had anastomotic leaks or defects after left anterior rectal resection (LAR) without ileostomy. They were treated with neo-adjuvant chemotherapy before the surgery and then subjected to rigid recto-sigmoidoscopy for 30 days following the operation. Any sign of leakage, such as perianal and pelvic pain, was immediately identified and followed up with a CT scan and another recto-sigmoidoscopy. Twenty-two patients were enrolled in this study, 12 men (54.5%) and 10 women (47.4%). All patients had received neo-adjuvant chemotherapy with an average follow-up of 22.30 ± 3.81. 75% of patients (15 cases) were successfully treated, and 17 patients (85%) underwent successful ostomy closure. Treatment failed in 5 patients (25%), including three men and two women. This study shows that handmade vacuum-assisted sponge drain is a cost-effective method of anastomotic leakage management with efficacy similar to that of Endo-SPONGE^®.

Tube-in-tube endoscopic vacuum therapy for treatment of colorectal anastomotic leaks: A low-cost, patient-friendly, feasible and efficient technical modification of sponge-based endoscopic vacuum therapy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Colorectal endoscopic vacuum therapy (CR EVT) is usually performed using sponges passed through the anus. It may be associated with patient discomfort and displacement of the aspiration tube.

METHODS

With the tube-in-tube endoscopic vacuum therapy modification (CR TT-EVT), it is possible to position the aspiration tube in the pelvic cavity through the abdominal wall. In addition, it allows frequent cleaning of the fistula, eliminates the need for programmed device changes, and enables a standardized approach to such a wide variety of fistulas, leaks, and perforations.

RESULTS

Here is a technical note on how to perform CR TT-EVT, while we are at the early phase of our case series we have reached 100% of technical success.

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.

Endoscopic Negative Pressure Therapy (ENPT) Is Superior to Stent Therapy for Staple Line Leak After Sleeve Gastrectomy: a Single-Center Cohort Study

PURPOSE

Staple line leak (SLL) is a serious complication after sleeve gastrectomy (SG). Common endoscopic treatment options include self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS), endoscopic internal drainage (EID), and endoscopic closure. The endoscopic negative pressure therapy (ENPT) is a promising treatment option combining temporary sealing of the defect with drainage of the inflammatory bed. In this study, we compare the outcome of ENPT and SEMS for the treatment of SLL following SG.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective cohort of 27 patients (21 females) treated at a single center for SLL after SG was included. ENPT was primary therapy for 14 patients and compared with 13 patients treated primarily using SEMS.

RESULTS

ENPT was associated with a significant reduction of hospital stay (19 ± 15.1 vs. 56.69 ± 47.21 days, p = 0.027), reduced duration of endoscopic treatment (9.8 ± 8.6 vs. 44.92 ± 60.98 days, p = 0.009), and shorter transabdominal drain dwell time (15 (5-96) vs. 45 (12-162) days, p = 0.014) when compared to SEMS. Whereas endoscopic management was successful in 12/14 (85.7%) of patients from the ENPT group, SEMS was successful in only 5/13 (38.5%) of patients (p = 0.015). Furthermore, ENPT was associated with a significant reduction of endoscopic adverse events compared with SEMS (14.3% vs. 76.92% p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Compared with SEMS, ENPT is effective and safe in treating SLL after SG providing higher success rates, shorter treatment duration, and lower adverse events rates.

Endoscopic vacuum therapy for in- and outpatient treatment of colorectal defects

Background

Evidence for endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT) for colorectal defects is still based on small patient series from various institutions, employing different treatment algorithms and methods. As EVT was invented at our institution 20 years ago, the aim was to report the efficacy and safety of EVT for colorectal defects as well as to analyze factors associated with efficacy, therapy duration, and outpatient treatment.

Methods

Cohort study with analysis of prospectively collected data of patients receiving EVT for colorectal defects at a tertiary referral center in Germany (n = 281).

Results

The majority of patients had malignant disease (83%) and an American Society of Anesthesiologists classification of III/IV (81%). Most frequent indications for EVT were anastomotic leakage after sigmoid or rectal resection (67%) followed by rectal stump leakage (20%). EVT was successful in 256 out of 281 patients (91%). EVT following multi-visceral resection (P = 0.037) and recent surgical revision after primary surgery (P = 0.009) were risk factors for EVT failure. EVT-associated adverse events occurred in 27 patients (10%). Median treatment duration was 25 days. Previous chemo-radiation (P = 0.006) was associated with a significant longer duration of EVT. Outpatient treatment was conducted in 49% of patients with a median hospital stay reduction of 15 days and 98% treatment success. Younger patient age (P = 0.044) was associated with the possibility of outpatient treatment. Restoration of intestinal continuity was achieved in 60% of patients where technically possible with a 12-month rate of 52%.

Conclusions

In patients with colorectal defects, EVT appears to be a safe and effective, minimally invasive option for in- and outpatient treatment.