Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic low anterior resection: A single-center retrospective study

Does one-stitch method of temporary ileostomy affect the stoma-related complications after laparoscopic low anterior resection in rectal cancer patients?

PURPOSE

This current study attempted to investigate whether one-stitch method (OM) of temporary ileostomy influenced the stoma-related complications after laparoscopic low anterior resection (LLAR).

METHODS

We searched for eligible studies in four databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and CNKI from inception to July 20, 2023. Both surgical outcomes and stoma-related complications were compared between the OM group and the traditional method (TM) group. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was adopted for quality assessment. RevMan 5.4 was conducted for data analyzing.

RESULTS

Totally 590 patients from six studies were enrolled in this study (272 patients in the OM group and 318 patients in the TM group). No significant difference was found in baseline information (P > 0.05). Patients in the OM group had shorter operative time in both the primary LLAR surgery (MD = - 17.73, 95%CI = - 25.65 to - 9.80, P < 0.01) and the stoma reversal surgery (MD = - 18.70, 95%CI = - 22.48 to -14.92, P < 0.01) than patients in the TM group. There was no significant difference in intraoperative blood loss of the primary LLAR surgery (MD = - 2.92, 95%CI = - 7.15 to 1.32, P = 0.18). Moreover, patients in the OM group had fewer stoma-related complications than patients in the TM group (OR = 0.55, 95%CI = 0.38 to 0.79, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

The OM group had shorter operation time in both the primary LLAR surgery and the stoma reversal surgery than the TM group. Moreover, the OM group had less stoma-related complications.

Efficacy of reinforcing sutures for prevention of anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection for rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Anastomotic leakage is a serious complication following surgery for cancer of the rectum. It is not clear whether reinforcing sutures could prevent anastomotic leakage. Therefore, this study aims at evaluating the efficacy of reinforcing sutures on anastomotic leakage.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases from inception to January 31, 2023. We included studies comparing anastomosis with reinforcing sutures to anastomosis without reinforcing sutures after low anterior resection. Risk of bias was assessed by the Cochrane tool for RCTs and the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies (ROBINS)-I tool for observational studies. The overall quality of evidence for primary outcome was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluations methodology.

RESULTS

Two RCTs (345 patients) and four observational studies (783 patients) were included. Anastomotic leakage occurred in 4.4% (24 of 548) of patients with reinforcing sutures and 11.9% (69 of 580) of patients without reinforcing sutures. Meta-analysis showed a lower incidence of anastomotic leakage (RR, 0.41; 95% CI 0.25 to 0.66, low certainty) in patients with reinforcing sutures. Operative time (WMD, -3.66; 95% CI -18.58 to 11.25) and reoperation for anastomotic leakage (RR, 0.69; 95% CI 0.23 to 2.08) were similar between patients with reinforcing sutures and those without reinforcing sutures.

CONCLUSIONS

While observational data suggest that, there is a clear benefit in terms of reducing the risk of anastomotic leakage with the use of reinforcing sutures, RCT data are less clear. Further large, prospective studies are warranted to determine whether a true clinically important benefit exists with this technique.

Assessing the role of anastomotic level in low anterior resection (LAR) surgery among rectal cancer patients in the development of LAR syndrome: a systematic review study

BACKGROUND

The etiology of LARS has not been elaborated on clearly. Studies have reported neoadjuvant therapy, low-lying rectal cancers, adjuvant therapy and anastomotic leakage as risk factors for the development of LARS. Anastomotic level has also been proposed as a possible risk factor; However, there have been conflicting results. This study aims to evaluate the role of the level of anastomosis as a potential risk factor for the development of LARS.

METHOD

A systematic literature search was conducted on Pubmed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science databases using Mesh terms and non-Mesh terms from 2012 to 2023. Original English studies conducted on rectal cancer patients reporting of anastomotic level and LARS status were included in this study. Eligible studies were assessed regarding quality control with Joanna-Briggs Institute (JBI) questionnaires.

RESULTS

A total of 396 articles were found using the research queries, and after applying selection criteria 4 articles were selected. A sample population of 808 patients were included in this study with a mean age of 61.51 years with male patients consisting 59.28% of the cases. The Mean assessment time was 15.6 months which revealed a mean prevalence of 48.89% for LAR syndrome. Regression analysis revealed significantly increased risk of LAR syndrome development due to low anastomosis level in all 4 studies with odds ratios of 5.336 (95% CI:3.197-8.907), 3.76 (95% CI: 1.34-10.61), 1.145 (95% CI: 1.141-2.149) and 2.11 (95% CI: 1.05-4.27) for low anastomoses and 4.34 (95% CI: 1.05-18.04) for ultralow anastomoses.

CONCLUSIONS

LARS is a long-term complication following surgery, leading to reduced quality of life. Low anastomosis level has been reported as a possible risk factor. All of the studies in this systematic review were associated with an increased risk of LARS development among patients with low anastomosis.

Surgical outcomes of robotic, laparoscopic, and open low anterior resection after preoperative chemoradiotherapy for patients with advanced lower rectal cancer

PURPOSE

We investigated the surgical outcomes of robotic low anterior resection (LAR) for lower rectal cancer after preoperative chemoradiotherapy (pCRT).

METHODS

A total of 175 patients with lower rectal cancer who underwent LAR after pCRT between 2005 and 2020 were stratified into open (OS, n = 65), laparoscopic (LS, n = 64), and robotic surgery (RS, n = 46) groups. We compared the clinical, surgical, and pathological results among the three groups.

RESULTS

The RS and LS groups had less blood loss than the OS group (p < 0.0001). The operating time in the RS group was longer than in the LS and OS groups (p < 0.0001). The RS group had a significantly longer mean distal margin than the LS and OS groups (25.4 mm vs. 20.7 mm and 20.3 mm, respectively; p = 0.026). There was no significant difference in the postoperative complication rate among the groups. The local recurrence rate in the RS group was comparable to those in the LS and OS groups.

CONCLUSION

Robotic LAR after pCRT was performed safely for patients with advanced lower rectal cancer. It provided a longer distal margin and equivalent local control rates.