Defunctioning stomas may reduce chances of a stoma-free outcome after anterior resection for rectal cancer

Prophylactic defunctioning stomas improve clinical outcomes of anastomotic leak following rectal cancer resections: An analysis of the US Rectal Cancer Consortium

PURPOSE

Anastomotic leak (AL) is a complication of low anterior resection (LAR) that results in substantial morbidity. There is immense interest in evaluating immediate postoperative and long-term oncologic outcomes in patients who undergo diverting loop ileostomies (DLI). The purpose of this study is to understand the relationship between fecal diversion, AL, and oncologic outcomes.

METHODS

This is a retrospective multicenter cohort study using patient data obtained from the US Rectal Cancer Consortium database compiled from six academic institutions. The study population included patients with rectal adenocarcinoma undergoing LAR. The primary outcome was the incidence of AL among patients who did or did not receive DLI during LAR. Secondary outcomes included risk factors for AL, receipt of adjuvant therapy, 3-year overall survival, and 3-year recurrence.

RESULTS

Of 815 patients, 38 (4.7%) suffered AL after LAR. Patients with AL were more likely to be male, have unintentional preoperative weight loss, and are less likely to undergo DLI. On multivariable analysis, DLI remained protective against AL (p < 0.001). Diverted patients were less likely to undergo future surgical procedures including additional ostomy creation, completion proctectomy, or pelvic washout for AL. Subgroup analysis of 456 patients with locally advanced disease showed that DLI was correlated with increased receipt of adjuvant therapy for patients with and without AL on univariate analysis (SHR:1.59; [95% CI 1.19-2.14]; p = 0.002), but significance was not met in multivariate models.

CONCLUSION

Lack of DLI and preoperative weight loss was associated with anastomotic leak. Fecal diversion may improve the timely initiation of adjuvant oncologic therapy. The long-term outcomes following routine diverting stomas warrant further study.

Anastomotic Leakage in Relation to Type of Mesorectal Excision and Defunctioning Stoma Use in Anterior Resection for Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic leakage after anterior resection for rectal cancer is more common after total mesorectal excision compared to partial mesorectal excision but might be mitigated by a defunctioning stoma.

OBJECTIVE

The aim is to assess how anastomotic leakage is affected by type of mesorectal excision and defunctioning stoma use.

DESIGN

This is a retrospective multicenter cohort study evaluating anastomotic leakage after anterior resection. Multivariable Cox regression with HRs and 95% CIs was used to contrast mesorectal excision types and defunctioning stoma use with respect to anastomotic leakage, with adjustment for confounding.

SETTINGS

This multicenter study included patients from 11 Swedish hospitals between 2014 and 2018.

PATIENTS

Patients who underwent anterior resection for rectal cancer were included.

MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES

Anastomotic leakage rates within and after 30 days of surgery are described up to 1 year after surgery.

RESULTS

Anastomotic leakage occurred in 24.2% and 9.0% of 1126 patients operated with total and partial mesorectal excision, respectively. Partial compared to total mesorectal excision was associated with a reduction in leakage, with an adjusted HR of 0.46 (95% CI, 0.29-0.74). Early leak rates within 30 days were 14.9% with and 12.5% without a stoma, whereas late leak rates after 30 days were 7.5% with and 1.9% without a stoma. After adjustment, defunctioning stoma was associated with a lower early leak rate (HR 0.47; 95% CI, 0.28-0.77). However, the late leak rate was nonsignificantly higher in patients with defunctioning stomas (HR 1.69; 95% CI, 0.59-4.85).

LIMITATIONS

This study was limited by its retrospective observational study design.

CONCLUSIONS

Anastomotic leakage is common up to 1 year after anterior resection for rectal cancer, where partial mesorectal excision is associated with a lower leak rate. Defunctioning stomas seem to decrease the occurrence of leakage, although partially by only delaying the diagnosis. See Video Abstract .

FUGA ANASTOMTICA SEGN EL TIPO DE EXCISIN MESORRECTAL Y LA CONFECCIN DE OSTOMA DE PROTECCIN EN LA RESECCIN ANTERIOR POR CNCER DE RECTO

ANTECEDENTES:La fuga anastomótica después de una resección anterior por cáncer de recto es más frecuente después de la excisión total del mesorrecto comparada con la excisión parcial del mismo, pero podría mitigarse con la confección de ostomías de protección.OBJETIVO:El objetivo es evaluar cómo la fuga anastomótica se ve afectada según el tipo de excisión mesorrectal y la confección de una ostomía de protección.DISEÑO:Estudio de cohortes multicéntrico y retrospectivo que evalúa la fuga anastomótica después de la resección anterior. Se aplicó la regresión multivariada de Cox con los índices de riesgo (HR) y los intervalos de confianza (IC) al 95% para contrastar los tipos de excisión mesorrectal y el uso de otomías de protección con respecto a la fuga anastomótica, realizando ajustes respecto a las variables de confusión.AJUSTES:El presente estudio multicéntrico incluyó pacientes de 11 hospitales suecos entre 2014 y 2018.PACIENTES:Se incluyeron todos aquellos sometidos a resección anterior por cáncer de recto.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADOS:Las tasas de fuga anastomótica dentro y después de los 30 días de la cirugía fueron descritos hasta un año mas tarde al acto quirúrgico.RESULTADOS:La fuga anastomótica ocurrió en el 24,2% y el 9,0% de 1126 pacientes operados por excisión total y parcial del mesorrecto respectivamente.La excisión parcial del mesorrecto en comparación con la total se asoció con una reducción de la fuga, HR ajustado de 0,46 (IC del 95 %: 0,29 a 0,74). Las tasas de fuga temprana dentro de los 30 días fueron del 14,9 % con y el 12,5 % sin estoma, mientras que las tasas de fuga tardía después de 30 días fueron del 7,5 % con y el 1,9 % sin estoma.Después del ajuste de variables de confusión, las ostomías de protección se asociaron con una tasa de fuga temprana más baja (HR 0,47; IC 95 %: 0,28-0,77). Sin embargo, la tasa de fuga tardía no fue significativamente mayor en pacientes ostomizados (HR 1,69; IC 95%: 0,59-4,85).LIMITACIONES:Las limitaciones del presente estudio estuvieron vinculadas con el diseño de tipo observacional y retrospectivo.CONCLUSIONES:La fuga anastomótica es común hasta un año después de la resección anterior por cáncer de recto, donde la excisión parcial del mesorrecto se asocia con una menor tasa de fuga. La confección de ostomías de protección parece disminuir la aparición de fuga anastomótica, aunque en parte sólo retrasen el diagnóstico. (Traducción-Dr. Xavier Delgadillo ).

Risk factors and incidence of non-closure stoma in patients with anterior resection of rectal cancer with temporary stoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To further define the risk factors and incidence of non-closure stoma in patients with anterior resection of rectal cancer with temporary stoma.

METHODS

Records from five English databases and four Chinese databases. Odds ratios (OR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) were used to indicate the risk of inclusion of risk factors. The non-closure stoma rate used the risk difference (RD) and 95 % CI. Risk factors were evaluated for quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).

RESULTS

Risk factors of non-closure stoma in patients with anterior resection of rectal cancer with temporary stoma were Age ≥60 years[OR:1.57, 95%CI(1.44,1.72)], Tumor IV stage[OR:4.21, 95%CI(2.29,7.74)], American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA)≥3[OR:1.48, 95%CI(1.33,1.65)], Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy[OR:1.41, 95%CI(1.09,1.82)],Open surgery[OR:1.45, 95%CI(1.09,1.93)], Postoperative chemotherapy[OR:1.37, 95%CI(1.03,1.82)], Anastomotic leakage[OR:4.61, 95%CI(2.86, 7.44)], Local recurrence[OR:7.16, 95%CI(4.70, 10.91)]. The rate of non-closure stoma after anterior resection for rectal cancer was: 0.20, 95 % CI (0.17, 0.23). The quality of evidence for stage IV tumors and anastomotic leakage was moderate, and other risk factors were low to very low.

CONCLUSIONS

Risk factors of non-closure stoma in patients with anterior resection of rectal cancer with temporary stoma were Age≥60 years, Tumor IV stage, ASA≥3, Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, Open surgery, Postoperative chemotherapy, Anastomotic leakage, Local recurrence, and one in five anterior resection patients with a temporary stoma fails to close.

Tumour-specific mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: Systematic review and meta-analysis of oncological and functional outcomes

BACKGROUND

Tumour-specific mesorectal excision (TSME) practice for rectal cancer only relies on small retrospective studies. This study aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the oncological and functional outcomes of TSME practice.

METHODS

A systematic review protocol was drawn to include all the studies that compared partial versus total mesorectal excision (PME vs TME) practised for rectal adenocarcinoma up to 16 cm from the anal verge. A systematic literature search was conducted on EMBASE-Medline, Pubmed and Cochrane Library. Reports were screened for the study's outcomes: oncological radicality, postoperative anastomotic leak risk and functional outcomes. Included studies were appraised for risk-of-bias and meta-analysed. Evidence was rated with the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven studies were included, consisting of 12325 patients (PME n = 4460, 36.2%; TME n = 7865, 63.8%). PME was performed for tumours higher than 10 cm from the anal verge in 54.5% of patients. There was no difference between PME and TME in circumferential resection margin positivity (OR 1.31, 95%CI 0.43-3.95, p = 0.64; I2 = 38%), and local recurrence risk (HR 1.05, 95%CI 0.52-2.10, p = 0.90; I2 = 40%). The postoperative leak risk (OR 0.42, 95%CI 0.27-0.67, p < 0.001; I2 = 60%) and the major low anterior resection syndrome risk (OR 0.34, 95%CI 0.28-0.40, p < 0.001; I2 = 0%) were lower after PME surgery. No difference was found in urinary incontinence (OR 0.68, 95%CI 0.13-3.67, p = 0.66) and urinary retention after early catheter removal (OR 2.00, 95%CI 0.24-16.51, p = 0.52).

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence from this meta-analysis shows that TSME for rectal cancer has good oncological results and leads to the best-fitted functional results possible for the patient's condition.

Stoma-free Survival After Rectal Cancer Resection With Anastomotic Leakage: Development and Validation of a Prediction Model in a Large International Cohort

OBJECTIVE

To develop and validate a prediction model (STOMA score) for 1-year stoma-free survival in patients with rectal cancer (RC) with anastomotic leakage (AL).

BACKGROUND

AL after RC resection often results in a permanent stoma.

METHODS

This international retrospective cohort study (TENTACLE-Rectum) encompassed 216 participating centres and included patients who developed AL after RC surgery between 2014 and 2018. Clinically relevant predictors for 1-year stoma-free survival were included in uni and multivariable logistic regression models. The STOMA score was developed and internally validated in a cohort of patients operated between 2014 and 2017, with subsequent temporal validation in a 2018 cohort. The discriminative power and calibration of the models' performance were evaluated.

RESULTS

This study included 2499 patients with AL, 1954 in the development cohort and 545 in the validation cohort. Baseline characteristics were comparable. One-year stoma-free survival was 45.0% in the development cohort and 43.7% in the validation cohort. The following predictors were included in the STOMA score: sex, age, American Society of Anestesiologist classification, body mass index, clinical M-disease, neoadjuvant therapy, abdominal and transanal approach, primary defunctioning stoma, multivisceral resection, clinical setting in which AL was diagnosed, postoperative day of AL diagnosis, abdominal contamination, anastomotic defect circumference, bowel wall ischemia, anastomotic fistula, retraction, and reactivation leakage. The STOMA score showed good discrimination and calibration (c-index: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.66-0.76).

CONCLUSIONS

The STOMA score consists of 18 clinically relevant factors and estimates the individual risk for 1-year stoma-free survival in patients with AL after RC surgery, which may improve patient counseling and give guidance when analyzing the efficacy of different treatment strategies in future studies.

Defunctioning stoma and anastomotic stricture in rectal cancer surgery: a propensity score matching study

BACKGROUND

In cases of rectal cancer surgery, patients at high risk of anastomotic leakage often receive a defunctioning stoma (DS). However, its role in postoperative anastomotic strictures (AS) remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate the correlation between DS and AS and outcomes of transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) in treating rectal AS.

METHODS

This retrospective study was conducted from January 2019 to September 2021 and included patients who underwent rectal cancer surgery. A 1:1 ratio was used for propensity score matching (PSM). Univariate analyses were performed to identify statistically significant variables, and multivariate analyses were conducted to determine the factors affecting AS.

RESULTS

This study included 383 patients. The results of the univariate analysis suggested that surgery time (HR 4.597, 95% CI 1.563-13.525, P=0.006), postoperative anastomotic leakage (HR 11.830, 95% CI 3.773-37.094, P<0.001), and DS (HR 15.475, 95% CI 6.042-39.641, P<0.001) were significantly associated with AS. In the multivariate analysis, postoperative anastomotic leakage (HR 7.596, 95% CI 1.987-29.044, P= 0.003) and DS (HR 11.252, 95% CI 4.113-30.779, P<0.001) were identified as significant risk factors for AS. After matching, the univariate analysis revealed that postoperative anastomotic leakage (HR 8.333, 95% CI 1.541-45.052, P= 0.014) and DS (HR 9.965, 95% CI 2.200-45.142, P= 0.003) were associated with AS. The multivariate analysis indicated that postoperative anastomotic leakage (HR 14.549, 95% CI 1.765-119.913, P= 0.013) and DS (HR 12.450, 95% CI 2.418-64.108, P= 0.003) were significant risk factors for AS.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides evidence that DS is independently associated with AS, and postoperative anastomotic leakage increases the risk of AS. Furthermore, this study suggests that TEM could be a valuable treatment option for AS.

Defunctioning stoma in anterior resection for rectal cancer does not impact anastomotic leakage: a national population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

Anterior resection (AR) is considered the gold standard for curative cancer treatment in the middle and upper rectum. The goal of the sphincter-preserving procedure, such as AR, is vulnerable to anastomotic leak (AL) complications. Defunctioning stoma (DS) became the protective measure against AL. Often a defunctioning loop-ileostomy is used, which is associated with substantial morbidity. However, not much is known if the routine use of DS reduces the overall incidence of AL.

METHODS

Elective patients subjected to AR in 2007-2009 and 2016-18 were recruited from the Swedish colorectal cancer registry (SCRCR). Patient characteristics, including DS status and occurrence of AL, were analyzed. In addition, independent risk factors for AL were investigated by multivariable regression.

RESULTS

The statistical increase of DS from 71.6% in 2007-2009 to 76.7% in 2016-2018 did not impact the incidence of AL (9.2% and 8.2%), respectively. DLI was constructed in more than 35% of high-located tumors ≥ 11 cm from the anal verge. Multivariable analysis showed that male gender, ASA 3-4, BMI > 30 kg/m², and neoadjuvant therapy were independent risk factors for AL.

CONCLUSION

Routine DS did not decrease overall AL after AR. A selective decision algorithm for DS construction is needed to protect from AL and mitigate DS morbidities.

Nomogram for predicting the probability of permanent stoma in patients with acute obstructive colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Acute obstructive colorectal cancer is a high-risk emergency among colorectal cancer (CRC). Approximately 20% of CRC patients are associated with a permanent stoma, which greatly affects the lifestyle of patients. This study aimed to investigate risk factors for predicting permanent stoma (PS) in patients with acute obstructive colorectal cancer.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the clinical-pathological features of patients with acute obstructive colorectal cancer who underwent treatments from our hospital between January 2015 and December 2020. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to evaluate the risk factors for predicting PS chances of CRC patients using a nomogram method. Furthermore, the operating characteristic (ROC) curve and area under the ROC curve (AUC) were used to assess the discrimination power of the nomogram. Calibration plot was used to evaluate nomogram's calibration.

RESULTS

A total of 98 patients with acute obstructive colorectal cancer were enrolled in this study, including 24 PS patients with permanent stoma and 74 non-PS patients. Multivariate analysis showed that age [odds ratio (OR): 1.068, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.006 ~ 1.135, P = 0.032], carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) [OR: 1.015, 95% CI: 1.003 ~ 1.028, P = 0.013], and surgical method [emergency group vs. stent group, OR: 14.066, 95% CI: 3.625 ~ 54.572, p < 0.001] were independent risk factors for PS. These risk factors were incorporated into a nomogram and showed that the AUC of the nomogram was 0.867 (95% CI: 0.782-0.951). The calibration plot got consistent with prediction for PS in the nomogram.

CONCLUSION

Age, CEA, and surgical method were independent risk factors for PS in patients with acute obstructive colorectal cancer. Our nomogram has favorable predictive power for PS in CRC patients.

Predictive Factors for Anastomotic Leakage Following Colorectal Cancer Surgery: Where Are We and Where Are We Going?

Anastomotic leakage (AL) remains one of the most severe complications following colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery. Indeed, leaks that may occur after any type of intestinal anastomosis are commonly associated with a higher reoperation rate and an increased risk of postoperative morbidity and mortality. At first, our review aims to identify specific preoperative, intraoperative and perioperative factors that eventually lead to the development of anastomotic dehiscence based on the current literature. We will also investigate the role of several biomarkers in predicting the presence of ALs following colorectal surgery. Despite significant improvements in perioperative care, advances in surgical techniques, and a high index of suspicion of this complication, the incidence of AL remained stable during the last decades. Thus, gaining a better knowledge of the risk factors that influence the AL rates may help identify high-risk surgical patients requiring more intensive perioperative surveillance. Furthermore, prompt diagnosis of this severe complication may help improve patient survival. To date, several studies have identified predictive biomarkers of ALs, which are most commonly associated with the inflammatory response to colorectal surgery. Interestingly, early diagnosis and evaluation of the severity of this complication may offer a significant opportunity to guide clinical judgement and decision-making.

Impact of a diverting ileostomy in total mesorectal excision with primary anastomosis for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The role of diverting ileostomy in total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer with primary anastomosis is debated. The aim of this study is to gain insight in the clinical consequences of a diverting ileostomy, with respect to stoma rate at one year and stoma-related morbidity.

METHODS

Patients undergoing TME with primary anastomosis for rectal cancer between 2015 and 2017 in eleven participating hospitals were included. Retrospectively, two groups were compared: patients with or without diverting ileostomy construction during primary surgery. Primary endpoint was stoma rate at one year. Secondary endpoints were severity and rate of anastomotic leakage, overall morbidity rate within thirty days and stoma (reversal) related morbidity.

RESULTS

In 353 out of 595 patients (59.3%) a diverting ileostomy was constructed during primary surgery. Stoma rate at one year was 9.9% in the non-ileostomy group and 18.7% in the ileostomy group (p = 0.003). After correction for confounders, multivariate analysis showed that the construction of a diverting ileostomy during primary surgery was an independent risk factor for stoma at one year (OR 2.563 (95%CI 1.424-4.611), p = 0.002). Anastomotic leakage rate was 17.8% in the non-ileostomy group and 17.2% in the ileostomy group (p = 0.913). Overall 30-days morbidity rate was 37.6% in the non-ileostomy group and 56.1% in the ileostomy group (p < 0.001). Stoma reversal related morbidity rate was 17.9%.

CONCLUSIONS

The stoma rate at one year was higher in patients with ileostomy construction during primary surgery. The incidence and severity of anastomotic leakage were not reduced by construction of an ileostomy. The morbidity related to the presence and reversal of a diverting ileostomy was substantial.

The impact of the anastomotic configuration on low anterior resection syndrome 3 years after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a national cohort study

AIM

After low anterior resection, the bowel can be anastomosed in different ways. It is not clear which configuration is optimal from a functional and complication point of view. The primary aim was to investigate the impact of the anastomotic configuration on bowel function evaluated by the low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) score. Secondarily, the impact on postoperative complications was evaluated.

METHOD

All patients who had undergone low anterior resection from 2015 to 2017 were identified in the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry. Three years after surgery, patients were sent an extensive questionnaire and were analysed based on anastomotic configuration ('J-pouch/side-to-end anastomosis' or 'straight anastomosis'). Inverse probability weighting by propensity score was used to adjust for confounding factors.

RESULTS

Among 892 patients, 574 (64%) responded, of whom 494 patients were analysed. After weighting, the anastomotic configuration had no significant impact on the LARS score (J-pouch/side-to-end OR 1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.82-1.34). The J-pouch/side-to-end anastomosis was significantly associated with overall postoperative complications (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.06-1.95). No significant difference was seen regarding surgical complications (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.78-1.66).

CONCLUSION

This is the first study investigating the impact of the anastomotic configuration on long-term bowel function, evaluated by the LARS score, in an unselected national cohort. Our results suggested no benefit for J-pouch/side-to-end anastomosis on long-term bowel function and postoperative complication rates. The anastomotic strategy may be based upon the anatomical conditions of the patient and surgical preference.

Protective ileostomy creation after anterior resection of the rectum: Shared decision-making or still subjective?

AIM

The choice of whether to perform protective ileostomy (PI) after anterior resection (AR) is mainly guided by risk factors (RFs) responsible for the development of anastomotic leakage (AL). However, clear guidelines about PI creation are still lacking in the literature and this is often decided according to the surgeon's preferences, experiences or feelings. This qualitative study aims to investigate, by an open-ended question survey, the individual surgeon's decision-making process regarding PI creation after elective AR.

METHOD

Fifty four colorectal surgeons took part in an electronic survey to answer the questions and describe what usually led their decision to perform PI. A content analysis was used to code the answers. To classify answers, five dichotomous categories (In favour/Against PI, Listed/Unlisted RFs, Typical/Atypical, Emotions/Non-emotions, Personal experience/No personal experience) have been developed.

RESULTS

Overall, 76% of surgeons were in favour of PI creation and 88% considered listed RFs in the question of whether to perform PI. Atypical answers were reported in 10% of cases. Emotions and personal experience influenced surgeons' decision-making process in 22% and 49% of cases, respectively. The most frequently considered RFs were the distance of the anastomosis from the anal verge (96%), neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (88%), a positive intraoperative leak test (65%), blood loss (37%) and immunosuppression therapy (35%).

CONCLUSION

The indications to perform PI following rectal cancer surgery lack standardization and evidence-based guidelines are required to inform practice. Until then, expert opinion can be helpful to assist the decision-making process in patients who have undergone AR for adenocarcinoma.

Diverting stomas reduce reoperation rates for anastomotic leak but not overall reoperation rates within 30 days after anterior rectal resection: a national cohort study

PURPOSE

A diverting stoma is commonly formed to reduce the rate of anastomotic leak following anterior resection with anastomosis, although some studies question this strategy. The aim of this study was to assess the leak rates and overall complication burden after anterior resection with and without a diverting stoma.

METHODS

A 5-year national cohort with prospectively registered data of patients who underwent elective anterior resection for rectal cancer located < 15 cm from the anal verge. Data were retrieved from the Norwegian Registry for Gastrointestinal Surgery and the Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Registry. Primary end point was relaparotomy or relaparoscopy for anastomotic leak within 30 days from index surgery. Secondary endpoints were postoperative complications including reoperation for any cause.

RESULTS

Some 1018 patients were included of whom 567 had a diverting stoma and 451 had not. Rate of reoperation for anastomotic leak was 13 out of 567 (2.3%) for patients with diverting stoma and 35 out of 451 (7.8%) (p > 0.001) for patients without. In multivariable analyses not having a diverting stoma (aOR 3.77, c.i 1.97-7.24, p < 0.001) was associated with increased risk for anastomotic leak. However, there were no differences in overall reoperation rates following anterior resection with or without diverting stoma (9.3% vs 10.9%, p = 0.423), and overall complication rates were similar. Reoperation was associated with increased mortality irrespective of the main intraoperative finding.

CONCLUSION

Diverting stoma formation after anterior resection is protective against reoperation for anastomotic leak but does not affect overall rates of reoperation or complications within 30 days.

Risk Factors and Preventive Measures for Anastomotic Leak in Colorectal Cancer

Anastomotic leak (AL) represents one of the most detrimental complications after colorectal surgery. The patient-related factors and surgery-related factors leading to AL have been identified in previous studies. Through early identification and timely adjustment of risk factors, preventive measures can be taken to reduce potential AL. However, there are still many problems associated with AL. The debate about preventive measures such as preoperative mechanical bowel preparation (MBP), intraoperative drainage, and surgical scope also continues. Recently, the gut microbiota has received more attention due to its important role in various diseases. Although the underlying mechanisms of gut microbiota on AL have not been validated completely, new strategies that manipulate intrinsic mechanisms are expected to prevent and treat AL. Moreover, laboratory examinations for AL prediction and methods for blood perfusion assessment are likely to be promoted in clinical practice. This review outlines possible risk factors for AL and suggests some preventive measures in terms of patient, surgery, and gut microbiota.