Ann Surg Treat Res.  2021 Feb;100(2):100-108. 10.4174/astr.2021.100.2.100.

The usefulness of transanal tube for reducing anastomotic leak in mid rectal cancer: compared to diverting stoma

Affiliations
  • 1Department of Surgery, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea
  • 2Department of Surgery, Myongji Hospital, Hanyang University College of Medicine, Goyang, Korea

Abstract

Purpose
Diverting stoma (DS) and transanal tube (TAT) are the 2 main procedures for reducing anastomotic leak (AL) in rectal cancer surgery. However, few studies have compared the protective effect of the 2 modalities against AL.
Methods
Total of 165 patients with mid rectal cancer, who underwent curative resection from 2012 to 2017, were included.Clinical characteristics and outcomes were compared. Risk factors for AL were identified using multivariate analysis.
Results
The DS group had lower tumor location, higher rates of neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy, and longer operative time than the TAT group. However, the level of the anastomosis did not show statistically significant differences (DS: 4.6 cm vs. TAT: 4.9 cm, P = 0.061). AL occurred in 14 of the 165 patients (8.5%), with 10 (10.2%) in the DS group and 4 (6.0%) in the TAT group (P = 0.405). On multivariate analysis, only low body mass index (BMI) and smoking were significantly related to AL. Neither the protection method nor neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy demonstrated statistical differences in AL. Seven of 10 patients in the DS group who experienced AL were treated conservatively, while all 4 in the TAT group underwent reoperation.
Conclusion
TAT seems to have comparable protective effect against AL to DS. However, in AL, DS appeared to be more effective in preventing reoperation. Therefore, DS is recommended in patients with low BMI or smoking, and with an expected higher probability of morbidity or mortality in case of reoperation. In other cases, TAT may be considered as an alternative to DS.

Keyword

Anastomotic leak; Rectal neoplasms; Surgical stomas

Figure

  • Fig. 1 Applied treatment after a diagnosis of anastomotic leak. DS, diverting stoma; TAT, transanal tube.


Cited by  1 articles

Isoperistaltic side-to-side anastomosis for the surgical treatment of Crohn disease
Wenhao Chen, Junjie Zhou, Min Chen, Congqing Jiang, Qun Qian, Zhao Ding
Ann Surg Treat Res. 2022;103(1):53-61.    doi: 10.4174/astr.2022.103.1.53.


Reference

1. Rahbari NN, Weitz J, Hohenberger W, Heald RJ, Moran B, Ulrich A, et al. Definition and grading of anastomotic leakage following anterior resection of the rectum: a proposal by the International Study Group of Rectal Cancer. Surgery. 2010; 147:339–351. PMID: 20004450.
Article
2. Paun BC, Cassie S, MacLean AR, Dixon E, Buie WD. Postoperative complications following surgery for rectal cancer. Ann Surg. 2010; 251:807–818. PMID: 20395841.
Article
3. McArdle CS, McMillan DC, Hole DJ. Impact of anastomotic leakage on long-term survival of patients undergoing curative resection for colorectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2005; 92:1150–1154. PMID: 16035134.
Article
4. Ha GW, Kim JH, Lee MR. Oncologic impact of anastomotic leakage following colorectal cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017; 24:3289–3299. PMID: 28608118.
Article
5. 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; 253:890–899. PMID: 21394013.
6. Shogan BD, Carlisle EM, Alverdy JC, Umanskiy K. Do we really know why colorectal anastomoses leak? J Gastrointest Surg. 2013; 17:1698–1707. PMID: 23690209.
Article
7. Goto S, Hida K, Kawada K, Okamura R, Hasegawa S, Kyogoku T, et al. Multicenter analysis of transanal tube placement for prevention of anastomotic leak after low anterior resection. J Surg Oncol. 2017; 116:989–995. PMID: 28743178.
Article
8. Zhao WT, Li NN, He D, Feng JY. Transanal tube for the prevention of anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Surg. 2017; 41:267–276. PMID: 27734078.
Article
9. Kim MK, Won DY, Lee JK, Kang WK, Kim JG, Oh ST. Comparative study between transanal tube and loop ileostomy in low anterior resection for mid rectal cancer: a retrospective single center trial. Ann Surg Treat Res. 2015; 88:260–268. PMID: 25960989.
Article
10. Floodeen H, Hallböök O, Hagberg LA, Matthiessen P. Costs and resource use following defunctioning stoma in low anterior resection for cancer: a long-term analysis of a randomized multicenter trial. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017; 43:330–336. PMID: 28069399.
11. Rullier E, Le Toux N, Laurent C, Garrelon JL, Parneix M, Saric J. Loop ileostomy versus loop colostomy for defunctioning low anastomoses during rectal cancer surgery. World J Surg. 2001; 25:274–278. PMID: 11343175.
Article
12. Snijders HS, van Leersum NJ, Henneman D, de Vries AC, Tollenaar RA, Stiggelbout AM, et al. Optimal treatment strategy in rectal cancer surgery: should we be cowboys or chickens? Ann Surg Oncol. 2015; 22:3582–3589. PMID: 25691277.
Article
13. Rack RJ. Advantages of an indwelling rectal tube in anterior resection and anastomosis for lesions involving the terminal portion of the colon. Dis Colon Rectum. 1966; 9:42–48. PMID: 5904614.
Article
14. Lee SY, Kim CH, Kim YJ, Kim HR. Impact of anal decompression on anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a propensity score matching analysis. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2015; 400:791–796. PMID: 26318026.
Article
15. Shigeta K, Okabayashi K, Baba H, Hasegawa H, Tsuruta M, Yamafuji K, et al. A meta-analysis of the use of a transanal drainage tube to prevent anastomotic leakage after anterior resection by doublestapling technique for rectal cancer. Surg Endosc. 2016; 30:543–550. PMID: 26091985.
Article
16. Shalaby M, Thabet W, Buonomo O, Lorenzo ND, Morshed M, Petrella G, et al. Transanal tube drainage as a conservative treatment for anastomotic leakage following a rectal resection. Ann Coloproctol. 2018; 34:317–321. PMID: 30572421.
Article
17. Wang FG, Yan WM, Yan M, Song MM. Comparison of anastomotic leakage rate and reoperation rate between transanal tube placement and defunctioning stoma after anterior resection: a network meta-analysis of clinical data. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2019; 45:1301–1309. PMID: 30738589.
Article
18. McDermott FD, Heeney A, Kelly ME, Steele RJ, Carlson GL, Winter DC. Systematic review of preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative risk factors for colorectal anastomotic leaks. Br J Surg. 2015; 102:462–479. PMID: 25703524.
Article
19. Arezzo A, Migliore M, Chiaro P, Arolfo S, Filippini C, Di Cuonzo D, et al. The REAL (REctal Anastomotic Leak) score for prediction of anastomotic leak after rectal cancer surgery. Tech Coloproctol. 2019; 23:649–663. PMID: 31240416.
Article
20. Sebag-Montefiore D, Stephens RJ, Steele R, Monson J, Grieve R, Khanna S, et al. Preoperative radiotherapy versus selective postoperative chemoradiotherapy in patients with rectal cancer (MRC CR07 and NCIC-CTG C016): a multicentre, randomised trial. Lancet. 2009; 373:811–820. PMID: 19269519.
Article
21. Marijnen CA, Kapiteijn E, van de Velde CJ, Martijn H, Steup WH, Wiggers T, et al. Acute side effects and complications after short-term preoperative radiotherapy combined with total mesorectal excision in primary rectal cancer: report of a multicenter randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 2002; 20:817–825. PMID: 11821466.
Article
22. Ma T, Zhong Q, Cao W, Qin Q, Meng X, Wang H, et al. Clinical anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer resection can be predicted by pelvic anatomic features on preoperative MRI scans: a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial. Dis Colon Rectum. 2019; 62:1326–1335. PMID: 31567929.
Article
23. Dekker JW, Liefers GJ, de Mol, Putter H, Tollenaar RA. Predicting the risk of anastomotic leakage in left-sided colorectal surgery using a colon leakage score. J Surg Res. 2011; 166:e27–e34. PMID: 21195424.
Article
24. Baucom RB, Poulose BK, Herline AJ, Muldoon RL, Cone MM, Geiger TM. Smoking as dominant r isk factor for anastomotic leak after left colon resection. Am J Surg. 2015; 210:1–5. PMID: 25910885.
25. Qu H, Liu Y, Bi DS. Clinical risk factors for anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic anterior resection for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc. 2015; 29:3608–3617. PMID: 25743996.
Article
26. Arkenbosch JH, van Erning FN, Rutten HJ, Zimmerman D, de Wilt JH, Beijer S. The association between body mass index and postoperative complications, 30-day mortality and long-term survival in Dutch patients with colorectal cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2019; 45:160–166. PMID: 30712552.
Article
27. Gebauer B, Meyer F, Ptok H, Steinert R, Otto R, Lippert H, et al. Impact of body mass index on early postoperative and long-term outcome after rectal cancer surgery. Visc Med. 2017; 33:373–382. PMID: 29177167.
Article
28. Simonsen C, de Heer P, Bjerre ED, Suetta C, Hojman P, Pedersen BK, et al. Sarcopenia and postoperative complication risk in gastrointestinal surgical oncology: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 2018; 268:58–69. PMID: 29373365.
29. Liu Y, Wan X, Wang G, Ren Y, Cheng Y, Zhao Y, et al. A scoring system to predict the risk of anastomotic leakage after anterior resection for rectal cancer. J Surg Oncol. 2014; 109:122–125. PMID: 24318774.
Article
30. Golden DL, Ata A, Kusupati V, Jenkel T, Khakoo NS, Taguma K, et al. Predicting postoperative complications after acute care surgery: how accurate is the ACS NSQIP surgical risk calculator? Am Surg. 2019; 85:335–341. PMID: 31043191.
Article
Full Text Links
  • ASTR
Actions
Cited
CITED
export Copy
Close
Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
Similar articles
Copyright © 2024 by Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors. All rights reserved.     E-mail: koreamed@kamje.or.kr