Transanal Tube as a Means of Prevention of Anastomotic Leakage after Rectal Cancer Surgery

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.

Transanal drainage tube for the prevention of anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Anastomotic leakage (AL) is a serious complication of anterior resection for rectal cancer. The use of transanal drainage tubes (TDT) during surgery to prevent AL remains controversial. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to determine the efficacy of TDT in reducing AL.

Methods

Relevant data and studies published from inception until November 1, 2022, were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases to compare the incidence of AL after anterior resection for rectal cancer with and without TDT.

Results

This meta-analysis included 5 RCTs comprising 1385 patients. The results showed that the intraoperative use of TDT could not reduce the incidence of AL after rectal cancer surgery (risk ratio [RR], 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52-1.59; p = 0.75). A subgroup analysis of different degrees of AL revealed that TDT did not reduce the incidence of postoperative grade B AL (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.67-2.09; p = 0.56) but decreased the incidence of grade C AL (RR, 0.28; 95% CI: 0.12-0.64; p = 0.003). Further, TDT did not reduce the incidence of AL in patients with rectal cancer and a stoma (RR, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.01-5.71; p = 0.05).

Conclusion

TDT were ineffective in reducing the overall incidence of AL, but they might be beneficial in reducing the incidence of grade C AL in patients who underwent anterior resection. However, additional multicenter RCTs with larger sample sizes based on unified control standards and TDT indications are warranted to validate these findings.

Role of transanal drainage tubes in preventing anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The transanal drainage tube (TDT) is thought to reduce the incidence of anastomotic leakage (AL) in patients with low anterior resection (LAR). However, results from different clinical trials are inconsistent, although nearly all meta-analyses agree on the efficacy. In contrast to results of many previous studies, 2 recent independent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) suggest that the use of TDT does not prevent AL. We performed a meta-analysis including only RCTs to compare patients with TDTs vs. those without TDTs in terms of AL rate.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library databases, Clinicaltrials.gov and WHO/ICTRP from inception until February 14, 2022. RCTs that evaluated the role of TDTs in AL prevention in patients who underwent LAR for rectal cancer were included. A meta-analysis was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines. Data were extracted by two authors independently, and random-effects models were implemented. The main outcome was AL, and the secondary outcome was the grade of AL.

RESULTS

Three RCTs were included involving a total of 1115 participants (559 patients in the TDT group and 556 in the non-TDT group). No significant difference in the AL rate was detected (RR = 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42-1.15, p = 0.15, I² = 21%, very low certainty evidence). The incidence of grade C AL was possibly lower in the TDT group (RR = 0.33, 95% CI 0.11-1.01, p = 0.05, very low certainty evidence), while the rate of grade B AL was similar between the two groups (RR = 1.17, 95% CI 0.66-2.08, p = 0.59, very low certainty evidence).

CONCLUSIONS

The present meta-analysis suggests that TDTs are not effective in reducing the overall incidence of AL, but possibly have a potential benefit in reducing the occurrence of grade C AL in patients with LAR. Based on the current limited data and existing heterogeneity, the inclusion of larger populations and the identification of more uniform indications for TDT need to be addressed in future studies.

A multicentre confirmatory single-arm trial of the safety and efficacy of a transanal drain for prevention of anastomotic leakage after surgery for rectal cancer

AIM

Recent reports have described the use and efficacy of several types of transanal tube (TAT) for preventing anastomotic leakage by reducing intraluminal pressure. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a newly developed TAT for the prevention of anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection (LAR) for rectal cancer.

METHOD

A multicentre confirmatory single-arm trial was designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a new TAT after LAR for rectal cancer. A total of 115 patients were registered in the trial at several cancer centres and other hospitals. All patients initially received reconstruction with a stapled anastomosis, but 18 then underwent creation of a diverting stoma. Of the remaining 97 patients, the first 96 were included in the protocol-defined primary analysis set. The primary outcome was the incidence of symptomatic leakage and the secondary endpoint was the incidence of complications associated with use of the TAT. The TAT was placed during LAR without creating a covering stoma and the drain was removed 4 or 5 days postoperatively.

RESULTS

The rate of symptomatic leakage was 5.2% (95% confidence interval 1.7-11.7), which was significantly lower than the predetermined threshold value of 15.8% (one-sided p-value 0.0013). Only one patient had Grade 3 rectal bleeding that might have been related to use of the TAT.

CONCLUSION

This nonrandomized study shows that the TAT appears to be safe and results in lower rates of anastomotic leakage in LAR compared with previous studies.

Transanal Drainage Tube Use for Preventing Anastomotic Leakage After Laparoscopic Low Anterior Resection in Patients With Rectal Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Preventing anastomotic leakage (AL) is crucial for colorectal surgery. Some studies have suggested a positive role of transanal drainage tubes (TDTs) in AL prevention after low anterior resection, but this finding is controversial.

Objective

To assess the effect of TDTs in AL prevention after laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This multicenter randomized clinical trial with parallel groups (TDT vs non-TDT) was performed from February 26, 2016, to September 30, 2020. Participants included patients from 7 different hospitals in China who were undergoing laparoscopic low anterior resection with the double-stapling technique for mid-low rectal cancer; 576 patients were initially enrolled in this study, and 16 were later excluded. Ultimately, 560 patients were randomly divided between the TDT and non-TDT groups.

Interventions

A silicone tube was inserted through the anus, and the tip of the tube was placed approximately 5 cm above the anastomosis under laparoscopy at the conclusion of surgery. The tube was fixed with a skin suture and connected to a drainage bag. The TDT was scheduled for removal 3 to 7 days after surgery.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary end point was the postoperative AL rate within 30 days.

Results

In total, 576 patients were initially enrolled in this study; 16 of these patients were excluded. Ultimately, 560 patients were randomly divided between the TDT group (n = 280; median age, 61.5 years [IQR, 54.0-68.8 years]; 177 men [63.2%]) and the non-TDT group (n = 280; median age, 62.0 years [IQR, 52.0-69.0 years]; 169 men [60.4%]). Intention-to-treat analysis showed no significant difference between the TDT and non-TDT groups in AL rates (18 [6.4%] vs 19 [6.8%]; relative risk, 0.947; 95% CI, 0.508-1.766; P = .87) or AL grades (grade B, 14 [5.0%] and grade C, 4 [1.4%] vs grade B, 11 [3.9%] and grade C, 8 [2.9%]; P = .43). In the stratified analysis based on diverting stomas, there was no significant difference in the AL rate between the groups, regardless of whether a diverting stoma was present (without stoma, 12 [5.8%] vs 15 [7.9%], P = .41; and with stoma, 6 [8.3%] vs 4 [4.5%], P = .50). Anal pain was the most common complaint from patients in the TDT group (130 of 280, 46.4%). Accidental early TDT removal occurred in 20 patients (7.1%), and no bleeding or iatrogenic colonic perforations were detected.

Conclusions and Relevance

The results from this randomized clinical trial indicated that TDTs may not confer any benefit for AL prevention in patients who undergo laparoscopic low anterior resection for mid-low rectal cancer without preoperative radiotherapy.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02686567.

Use of transanal drainage tube to prevent anastomotic leakage: intangible differences between the East and the West

Trans-anal drainage tube is used to reduce the rectal pressure, especially at the anastomotic site and thus to protect the anastomosis. Ideally it serves as and even may replace a diverting stoma. When compared to no treatment, the effectiveness of TDT seems confirmed based on the literature, but it remains uncertain whether TDT can replace the diverting stoma. Despite the insignificant tangible costs of TDT, it seems different cultures put varied weight on the intangible costs such as discomfort and pain to patients after surgery.

Does rectal tube/transanal stent placement after an anterior resection for rectal cancer reduce anastomotic leak? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is increasing evidence that either a transanal stent (TAS) or rectal tube (RT) can decrease the risk of anastomotic leakage (AL) after anterior resection for rectal cancer, in which a diverting stoma may not be required.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to investigate the efficacy and safety of RT/TAS in preventing AL after anterior resections.

DATA SOURCES

An up-to-date systematic review was performed on the available literature between 2000 and 2020 on PubMed, EMBASE, Medline and Cochrane Library databases.

STUDY SELECTION

All studies reporting on anterior resections in adults, comparing transanal tube/stent versus non-tube/stent, were analysed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The primary outcome was rates of AL, whereas secondary outcomes compared associated unplanned re-operation for AL and hospital length of stay (LOS).

RESULTS

Two randomized controlled trials and 13 observational studies were included, with 1714 patients receiving RT/TAS and 1741 patients without. There were 119 (7%) patients with AL in the RT/TAS group compared to 216 (12.3%) patients in the non-RT/TAS group (OR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.38-0.62, p < 0.001). There were 47 (2.9%) patients with AL complications requiring surgery in the RT/TAS group compared to 132 (8%) patients in the non-RT/TAS group (OR: 0.29, 95% CI: 0.20-0.42, p < 0.001) and no significant difference identified with the standardized mean difference (SMD) favouring the RT/TAS group for hospital LOS (SMD: -0.23, 95% CI: -0.51 to 0.06, p = 0.115).

CONCLUSION

The use of RT/TAS post restorative anterior resection for rectal cancer should be considered, given the benefits shown from this meta-analysis.

The impact of transanal tube design for preventing anastomotic leak in anterior resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Placement of a transanal tube (TAT) into the rectum is a strategy used to attempt to prevent anastomotic leak (AL) in anterior resection surgery. There is a wide variation in materials and tube design in devices used as TATs and previous meta-analyses have not considered TAT design in their analyses. This study reviews the impact that design of TAT has on AL rates.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed with the aim of identifying studies evaluating the use of TATs for preventing AL and then defining the design of TATs. Studies were then compared in groups based on TAT design in a meta-analysis to evaluate whether design is an important variable in outcomes.

RESULTS

Thirty-three studies were included. There was a wide variety of tubes used as TATs. On meta-analysis, catheter-type TATs were associated with a substantially lower rate of AL (OR: 0.46; 95% CI 0.30, 0.68). By contrast, stent-type TATs were not associated with any reduction in the incidence of AL (OR: 1.06, 95% CI 0.50, 2.22). Catheter-type TATs were also associated with substantial reductions in the rate of reoperation (OR: 0.32; 95% CI 0.20, 0.50), whereas stent-type TATs showed no benefit in the rate of reoperation (OR: 0.79; 95% CI 0.37, 1.65).

CONCLUSIONS

Off-the-shelf catheter-type transanal tubes appeared effective in preventing AL, whereas custom-designed stent-type TATs were not demonstrated to be effective; although high quality evidence is limited. TAT design should be an important consideration in further research of the use of TATs in anterior resection surgery.

Effect comparison of three different types of transanal drainage tubes after anterior resection for rectal cancer

Background

Anastomotic leakage (AL) is one of the most severe early complications after rectal cancer surgery. Many studies and meta-analysis results show that the indentation of transanal drainage tubes (TDT) can prevent and reduce the incidence of AL. However, the size and material of drainage tubes are rarely reported. Herein, we compare the effect of three kinds of TDT and analyze the use of TDT material and size to prevent AL, which may better prevent the occurrence of AL.

Methods

The clinical data of 182 patients who underwent laparoscopic anterior resection of rectal cancer were retrospectively analyzed between January 2016 and March 2019. According to the types of indwelling TDT after the operation, they were divided into Fr32 silicone tubes (81 cases), Fr24 silicone tubes (54 cases), Fr24 latex tubes (47 cases). The first drainage, exhaust, defecation, abdominal distension and anastomotic leakage of the patients with three different types of TDT were compared.

Results

There was no significant difference in the degree of first exhaust, abdominal distension and anastomotic leakage among three different types of TDT; the time of first drainage and defecation of the Fr32 silicone tube was significantly earlier than that of Fr24 silicone tube and Fr24 latex tube.

Conclusion

The drainage effect of the Fr32 silicone tube is better than that of Fr24 silicone tube and Fr24 latex tube after anterior resection for rectal cancer, Fr32 silicone may better prevent the occurrence of AL, but randomized controlled studies are needed.

Outcomes of transanal tube placement in anterior resection: A meta-analysis and systematic review

BACKGROUND

In recent years, transanal tube placement was reported to be an effective procedure preventing anastomotic leakage after anterior resection of rectal cancer. However, this procedure is still controversial owing to inconsistent results found in previous studies.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was performed using Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane library from the databases inception up until June 21, 2018. The methodological quality of randomized controlled trials and cohort studies were evaluated by Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, respectively. Statistical analysis was performed using the RevMan 5.3 software.

RESULTS

1 randomized controlled trial and 9 cohort studies were included in our meta-analysis. The randomized controlled trial was proven to be low risk according to the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias. All of the cohort studies proved a high quality according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Patients in transanal tube group had more disadvantageous preoperative demographic characteristics than patients in non-transanal tube group. The anastomotic leak rate was lower in the transanal tube group. Patients in the transanal tube group tended to have lower reoperation rates and shorter hospital stays compared with patients in the non-transanal tube group.

CONCLUSION

Despite various unfavorable preoperative characteristics, anastomotic leakage after anterior resection was lower in patients who received transanal tube placement compared with the control group. Transanal tube placement may be an alternative procedure of defunctioning stoma. A large sample size, multicenter RCT was needed to prove our results.

An updated meta-analysis of transanal drainage tube for prevention of anastomotic leak in anterior resection for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic leakage (AL) is one of the most serious complications after anterior resection for rectal cancer. Transanal drainage tube (TDT) placement is widely used to reduce AL, but its efficacy remains controversial. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of TDT for prevention of AL, using updated evidence.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies evaluating the effectiveness of TDT for prevention of AL after anterior resection for rectal cancer were identified by using a predefined search strategy. Meta-analysis was performed to estimate the pooled rates of AL, reoperation, anastomotic bleeding and mortality separately.

RESULTS

One RCT and ten cohort studies which including 1170 cases with TDT and 1262 cases without TDT were considered eligible for inclusion. Meta-analysis showed that the TDT group was associated with a significant lower rates of AL (RR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.31-0.58, P < 0.00001) and reoperation (RR: 0.29, 95% CI: 0.19-0.45, P < 0.00001). There was no significant difference in anastomotic bleeding rate and mortality between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

TDT placement is associated with significant lower rates of AL and reoperation, hence it is likely to be an effective method of preventing and reducing AL after rectal cancer surgery.

Prophylactic transanal decompression tube versus non-prophylactic transanal decompression tube for anastomotic leakage prevention in low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Transanal decompression tube (TDT), an alternative intervention believed to have potential equivalent efficacy in reducing anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer surgery and lower complication rates compared to protective stoma, was sporadically applied in some medical centers during recent decade. The objective of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the effect of the TDT in preventing the anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection for rectal cancer.

METHODS

The studies comparing TDT and non-TDT in rectal cancer were researched up to March 22, 2016 without language preference, in databases of PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane library, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and National Clinical Trials Registry. The rates of anastomotic leakage, bleeding, and re-operation were separately calculated and compared between TDT and non-TDT groups using RevMan 5.3. Funnel plots, and Egger's tests were used to evaluate the publication biases of the studies.

RESULTS

Two prospective randomized controlled trial studies and five observational cohort studies with 833 participants in TDT group and 939 participants in non-TDT group were finally included in this meta-analysis. The results indicated that the TDT group had lower anastomotic leakage rate than non-TDT group with significant RR (RR 0.44; 95 % CI 0.29-0.66; P < 0.0001) and heterogeneity (I ² = 33 %; P = 0.18). So did the re-operation rate, with RR (RR 0.16; 95 % CI 0.07-0.37; P < 0.0001) and heterogeneity among the studies (I ² = 0 %; P = 0.80). There was no significant difference in anastomotic bleeding rates (RR 1.48; 95 % CI 0.79-2.77; P = 0.22) (I ² = 58 %; P = 0.09). No publication bias was found by Egger's test (anastomotic leakage rate, Pr > |z| = 0.224; re-operation rate, Pr > |z| = 0.425).

CONCLUSIONS

TDT might be an efficient and economic intervention in preventing anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer surgery.