Anastomotic leakage after side-to-end anastomosis for rectal cancer: does leakage location matter?
retrospective_cohort · Level III
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 29316129.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1111/codi.14005.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
To assess outcome according to location of anastomotic leakage (AL) after side-to-end stapler or manual low colorectal or coloanal anastomosis following laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer. All patients presenting with symptomatic or asymptomatic AL after TME and side-to-end low anastomosis for rectal cancer performed from 2005 to 2014 were identified from our prospective database. CT-scans with contrast enema were reviewed to assess location of AL origin. Among 279 patients who underwent TME with side-to-end anastomosis from 2005 to 2014, 70 patients presented with AL and were included: 43 (61%) patients with AL on the circular anastomosis (CAL) were compared to 27 (39%) with AL on the transverse stapling line of the colonic stump (TAL). CAL and TAL were associated with similar rates of symptomatic AL (63% versus 48%, respectively; p=0.339), severe postoperative morbidity rate (33% versus 18%; p=0.313), and long-term outcomes, including definitive stoma rate (10 versus 11%; p=0.622), and major low anterior resection syndrome rate (56% vs 57%; p=0.961). Our study showed that whatever the location of AL on a side-to-end low colorectal or coloanal anastomosis after TME for cancer, both short and long-term outcomes are similar. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.