Reconstruction, Oversewing, or Taking the Anastomosis Down - Which Surgical Intervention is Most Potent in the Treatment of Anastomotic Leaks Following Colorectal Resections?

Overview

Journal Langenbecks Arch Surg

Specialty General Surgery

Date 2023 Jul 5

PMID 37405509

Authors

M El-Ahmar

F Koch

M Ristig

K Lehmann

J P Ritz

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

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.

Citing Articles

[Anastomotic leaks in colorectal surgery].

von Heesen M, Ghadimi M Chirurgie (Heidelb). 2024; 95(11):878-886.

PMID: 39387920 DOI: 10.1007/s00104-024-02180-0.

References

Dulskas A, Kuliavas J, Sirvys A, Bausys A, Kryzauskas M, Bickaite K . Anastomotic Leak Impact on Long-Term Survival after Right Colectomy for Cancer: A Propensity-Score-Matched Analysis. J Clin Med. 2022; 11(15). PMC: 9369268. DOI: 10.3390/jcm11154375. View

Kryzauskas M, Bausys A, Degutyte A, Abeciunas V, Poskus E, Bausys R . Risk factors for anastomotic leakage and its impact on long-term survival in left-sided colorectal cancer surgery. World J Surg Oncol. 2020; 18(1):205. PMC: 7427291. DOI: 10.1186/s12957-020-01968-8. View

Gessler B, Eriksson O, Angenete E . Diagnosis, treatment, and consequences of anastomotic leakage in colorectal surgery. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2017; 32(4):549-556. PMC: 5355508. DOI: 10.1007/s00384-016-2744-x. View

Buhr H, Klinger C, Lehmann K, Strahwald B, Rieger A . [German Society for General and Visceral Surgery (DGAV) risk calculator of interventions for colorectal cancer : Presentation of a surgical algorithm on patient participation and quality assurance]. Chirurg. 2019; 90(4):287-292. DOI: 10.1007/s00104-019-0936-y. View

Alberts J, Parvaiz A, Moran B . Predicting risk and diminishing the consequences of anastomotic dehiscence following rectal resection. Colorectal Dis. 2003; 5(5):478-82. DOI: 10.1046/j.1463-1318.2003.00515.x. View

Mirnezami A, Mirnezami R, Chandrakumaran K, Sasapu K, Sagar P, Finan P . Increased local recurrence and reduced survival from colorectal cancer following anastomotic leak: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 2011; 253(5):890-9. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182128929. View

Ha G, Kim J, Lee M . Oncologic Impact of Anastomotic Leakage Following Colorectal Cancer Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017; 24(11):3289-3299. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-017-5881-8. View

Ramphal W, Boeding J, Gobardhan P, Rutten H, de Winter L, Crolla R . Oncologic outcome and recurrence rate following anastomotic leakage after curative resection for colorectal cancer. Surg Oncol. 2018; 27(4):730-736. DOI: 10.1016/j.suronc.2018.10.003. View

Kim I, Kim B, Kim Y . The impact of anastomotic leakage on oncologic outcomes and the receipt and timing of adjuvant chemotherapy after colorectal cancer surgery. Int J Surg. 2015; 22:3-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2015.08.017. View

10.

Walker K, Bell S, Rickard M, Mehanna D, Dent O, Chapuis P . Anastomotic leakage is predictive of diminished survival after potentially curative resection for colorectal cancer. Ann Surg. 2004; 240(2):255-9. PMC: 1356401. DOI: 10.1097/01.sla.0000133186.81222.08. View

11.

Nachiappan S, Askari A, Malietzis G, Giacometti M, White I, Jenkins J . The impact of anastomotic leak and its treatment on cancer recurrence and survival following elective colorectal cancer resection. World J Surg. 2014; 39(4):1052-8. DOI: 10.1007/s00268-014-2887-2. View

12.

Parthasarathy M, Greensmith M, Bowers D, Groot-Wassink T . Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after colorectal resection: a retrospective analysis of 17 518 patients. Colorectal Dis. 2016; 19(3):288-298. DOI: 10.1111/codi.13476. View

13.

Rink A, Kienle P, Aigner F, Ulrich A . How to reduce anastomotic leakage in colorectal surgery-report from German expert meeting. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2020; 405(2):223-232. DOI: 10.1007/s00423-020-01864-5. View

14.

An V, Chandra R, Lawrence M . Anastomotic Failure in Colorectal Surgery: Where Are We at?. Indian J Surg. 2018; 80(2):163-170. PMC: 5991011. DOI: 10.1007/s12262-018-1745-0. View

15.

Burke L, Bashir M, Gardner C, Parsee A, Marin D, Vermess D . Image-guided percutaneous drainage vs. surgical repair of gastrointestinal anastomotic leaks: is there a difference in hospital course or hospitalization cost?. Abdom Imaging. 2014; 40(5):1279-84. DOI: 10.1007/s00261-014-0265-z. View

16.

Kuhn F, Janisch F, Schwandner F, Gock M, Wedermann N, Witte M . Comparison Between Endoscopic Vacuum Therapy and Conventional Treatment for Leakage After Rectal Resection. World J Surg. 2020; 44(4):1277-1282. DOI: 10.1007/s00268-019-05349-5. View

17.

Kuhn F, Wirth U, Zimmermann J, Beger N, Hasenhutl S, Drefs M . Endoscopic vacuum therapy for in- and outpatient treatment of colorectal defects. Surg Endosc. 2020; 35(12):6687-6695. PMC: 8599392. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-020-08172-5. View

18.

Kuhn F, Schardey J, Wirth U, Schiergens T, Crispin A, Beger N . Endoscopic vacuum therapy for the treatment of colorectal leaks - a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2021; 37(2):283-292. PMC: 8803669. DOI: 10.1007/s00384-021-04066-7. View

19.

Jansen-Winkeln B, Maktabi M, Takoh J, Rabe S, Barberio M, Kohler H . [Hyperspectral imaging of gastrointestinal anastomoses]. Chirurg. 2018; 89(9):717-725. DOI: 10.1007/s00104-018-0633-2. View

20.

Impellizzeri H, Pulvirenti A, Inama M, Bacchion M, Marrano E, Creciun M . Near-infrared fluorescence angiography for colorectal surgery is associated with a reduction of anastomotic leak rate. Updates Surg. 2020; 72(4):991-998. DOI: 10.1007/s13304-020-00758-x. View