SURGICAL ASPECTS OF PREVENTION OF COLORECTAL ANASTOMOSIC FAILURE
Abstract
Purpose of the study is to provide literature review on surgical aspects affecting the risk of developing colorectal anastomotic failure (CAF).
CAF frequency ranges from 7 to 25%. This review focuses on the technical aspects of surgical intervention that may influence the risk of CAF. The authors of the publications obtained data on the dependence of the risk of CAF on the experience of the surgeon, the features of mobilization of the intestine before resection, the choice of the type and height of colorectal anastomosis, the technique of suture formation, its strengthening and protection with a preventive stoma using pelvic and transanal drainages.
Conclusion. The frequency of CAF, along with other factors such as age, gender of the patient, concomitant pathology, bad habits, underlying disease, antibiotic prophylaxis, etc., depends on the technical aspects of surgical intervention.
About the Authors
A. A. Ibatullin
ФГБОУ ВО «Башкирский государственный медицинский университет» Минздрава России
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
M. V. Prokopyev
ФГБОУ ВО «Башкирский государственный медицинский университет» Минздрава России
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
R. R. Eibov
ФГБОУ ВО «Башкирский государственный медицинский университет» Минздрава России
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
A. R. Kashapova
ФГБОУ ВО «Башкирский государственный медицинский университет» Минздрава России
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
I. Kholnazarzoda
ФГБОУ ВО «Башкирский государственный медицинский университет» Минздрава России
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
D. I. Baitullin
ГБУЗ РБ «Белокатайская центральная районная больница»
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
References
1. Rahbari N.N., Weitz J., Hohenberger W. [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(3):339-51. (in Engl) doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2009.10.012.
2. van Helsdingen C.P., Jongen A.C., de Jonge W.J. [et al.] Consensus on the definition of colorectal anastomotic leakage: A modified Delphi study. World J. Gastroenterol. 2020;26(23):3293-3303. (in Engl) doi: 10.3748/wjg.v26.i23.3293.
3. Clavien P.A., Barkun J., de Oliveira M.L. [et al.] The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann. Surg. 2009;250(2):187-96. (in Engl) doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181b13ca2.
4. Spinelli A., Anania G., Arezzo A. [et al.] Italian multi-society modified Delphi consensus on the definition and management of anastomotic leakage in colorectal surgery. Updates Surg. 2020;72(3):781-792. (in Engl) doi: 10.1007/s13304-020-00837-z.
5. Yang S.Y., Han Y.D., Cho M.S. [et al.] Late anastomotic leakage after anal sphincter saving surgery for rectal cancer: is it different from early anastomotic leakage? Int. J. Colorectal Dis. 2020;35:1321–1330. (in Engl) https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-020-03608-9
6. An V., Chandra R., Lawrence M. Anastomotic failure in colorectal surgery: where are we at? Indian J Surg. 2018;80(2):163-170. (in Engl) doi: 10.1007/s12262-018-1745-0.
7. Qu H., Liu Y., Bi D.S. Clinical risk factors for anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic anterior resection for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg. Endosc. 2015;29(12):3608-17. (in Engl) doi: 10.1007/s00464-015-4117-x.
8. Tarasov M.A., Pikunov D.Yu., Zarodnyuk I.V. [et al.] Faktory riska nesostojatel'nosti nizkih kolorektal'nyh anastomozov (Risk factors for failure of low colorectal anastomoses). Clinical and experimental surgery. 2016;2(12). (in Russ.) URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/faktory-riska-nesostoyatelnosti-nizkih-kolorektalnyh-anastomozov (date of access: November 28, 2022).
9. Chen J.W., Chang W.J., Zhang Z.Y. [et al.] Risk factors of anastomotic leakage after robotic surgery for low and mid rectal cancer. Zhonghua Wei Chang Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2020;23(4):364-369. (in Engl) doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn.441530-20200212-00052.
10. Huisman D.E., Reudink M., van Rooijen S.J. [et al.] LekCheck. a prospective study to identify perioperative modifiable risk factors for anastomotic leakage in colorectal surgery. Ann. Surg. 2022;275(1):e189-e197. (in Engl) doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003853.
11. Emile S.H., Khan S.M., Wexner S.D. Impact of change in the surgical plan based on indocyanine green fluorescence angiography on the rates of colorectal anastomotic leak: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc. 2022;36:2245–2257. (in Engl) doi.org/10.1007/s00464-021-08973-2
12. Khasanov A.G., Sufiyarov I.F., Bakirov E.R., Yamalova G.R. Сolonic anastomoses leakage. Bashkortostan Medical Journal. 2020;15(1):75-79. (In Russ.)
13. Benli S., Tikici D., Baysan C. [et al.] Does mechanical bowel preparations really prevent infective complications after colorectal surgery? Is a myth or fact? Mechanic bowel preparations: is a myth or fact? Turk. J. Surg. 2023; 39(3):222-230. (in Engl) doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2013809/v1
14. Shelygin Yu.A., Nagudov M.A., Ponomarenko A.A., Rybakov E.G. Peroral'naja antibiotikoprofilaktika v kolorektal'noj hirurgii (sistematicheskij obzor literatury i setevoj metaanaliz) (Oral antibiotic prophylaxis in colorectal surgery (systematic review of the literature and network meta-analysis)). Coloproctology. 2018;3:103-114. (in Russ.)
15. Castagneto-Gissey L., Russo M.F., Casella-Mariolo J. [et al.] The role of antibiotic prophylaxis in anastomotic leak prevention during elective colorectal surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Antibiotics (Basel). 2023;12(2):397. (in Engl) doi: 10.3390/antibiotics12020397.
16. Alekseev M.V., Shelygin Yu.A., Rybakov E.G. Diagnosticheskaja cennost' primenenija nomogramm v prognozirovanii vozniknovenija nesostojatel'nosti kolorektal'nogo anastomoza (obzor literatury) (Diagnostic value of using nomograms in predicting the occurrence of colorectal anastomotic leakage (literature review)). Pelvic surgery and oncology. 2019;9(3):27–33. (in Russ.)
17. Simillis C., Lal N., Thoukididou S.N. [et al.] Open versus laparoscopic versus robotic versus transanal mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Ann. Surg. 2019;270(1):59-68. (in Engl) doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003227.
18. Khajeh E., Aminizadeh E., Dooghaie Moghadam A. [et al.] Outcomes of robot-assisted surgery in rectal cancer compared with open and laparoscopic surgery. Cancers (Basel). 2023;15(3):839. (in Engl) doi: 10.3390/cancers15030839.
19. Rondelli F., Pasculli A., De Rosa M. [et al.] Is routine splenic flexure mobilization always necessary in laparotomic or laparoscopic anterior rectal resection? A systematic review and comprehensive meta-analysis. Updates Surg. 2021;73:1643–1661. (in Engl) doi.org/10.1007/s13304-021-01135-y
20. Hajibandeh S., Hajibandeh S., Maw A. Meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing high and low ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery in rectal cancer surgery. Dis. Colon Rectum. 2020;63(7):988-999. (in Engl) doi: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000001693
21. Li B., Wang J., Yang S. [et al.] Left colic artery diameter is an important factor affecting anastomotic blood supply in sigmoid colon cancer or rectal cancer surgery: a pilot study. World J. Surg. Oncol. 2022;20(1):313. (in Engl) doi: 10.1186/s12957-022-02774-0.
22. Guo Y., Wang D., He L. [et al.] Marginal artery stump pressure in left colic artery-preserving rectal cancer surgery: a clinical trial. ANZ J. Surg. 2017;87(7-8):576-581. (in Engl) doi: 10.1111/ans.13032.
23. Trencheva K., Morrissey K.P., Wells M. [et al.] Identifying important predictors for anastomotic leak after colon and rectal resection: prospective study on 616 patients. Ann. Surg. 2013;257(1):108-13. (in Engl) doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e318262a6cd.
24. Bertelsen C.A., Andreasen A.H., Jørgensen T., Harling H. Anastomotic leakage after anterior resection for rectal cancer: risk factors. Colorect. Dis. 2010;12(1):37-43. (in Engl) doi: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2008.01711.x.
25. Zakharenko A.A., Belyaev M.A., Trushin A.A. [et al.] Intraoperacionnaja ocenka zhiznesposobnosti stenki kishki (obzor literatury) (Bowel viability assessment during surgery (review of the literature)). Vestnik hirurgii im. I.I. Grekova. 2020;(1). URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/intraoperatsionnaya-otsenka-zhiznesposobnosti-stenki-kishki-obzor-literatury (date of access: 03/12/2023). (in Russ.)
26. Lee S., Ahn B., Lee S. The relationship between the number of intersections of staple lines and anastomotic leakage after the use of a double stapling technique in laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Surg. Laparosc. Endosc. Percutan Tech. 2017;27(4):273-281. (in Engl) doi: 10.1097/SLE.0000000000000422.
27. Kawada K., Hasegawa S., Hida K. [et al.] Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic low anterior resection with DST anastomosis. Surg. Endosc. 2014;28(10):2988-95. (in Engl) doi: 10.1007/s00464-014-3564-0.
28. Vlasov A. A. et al. Comparative assessment of the effectiveness of methods for forming colonic anastomoses // Creative surgery and oncology. – 2014. – No. 4. – pp. 19-25. (in Russ.) doi.org/10.24060/2076-3093-2014-0-4-19-25
29. Nagaoka T., Yamaguchi T., Nagasaki T. [et al.] Safety of small circular staplers in double stapling technique anastomosis for sigmoid colon and rectal cancer. Dis. Colon Rectum. 2021;64(8):937-945. (in Engl) doi: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000001889.
30. Aliev F.Sh., Molokova O.A., Gunter V.E. [et al.] Kompressionnyj sposob anastomozirovanija tolstoj kishki implantatami s pamjat'ju formy - al'ternativa tradicionnym shvam (Compression method of anastomosis of large intestines by implants with memory of shape: alternative to traditional sutures). Onkologicheskaja koloproktologija. 2015;5(2):14-16. (in Russ.)
31. Shapiro R., Keler U., Segev L. [et al.] Laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis: short- and long-term benefits in comparison with extracorporeal anastomosis. Surg. Endosc. 2016;30(9):3823-9. (in Engl) doi: 10.1007/s00464-015-4684-x.
32. Hashida H., Mizuno R., Iwaki K. [et al.] Intracorporeal reinforcing sutures reduce anastomotic leakage in double-stapling anastomosis for laparoscopic rectal surgery. Wideochir. Inne Tech. Maloinwazyjne. 2022;17(3):491-497. (in Engl) doi: 10.5114/wiitm.2022.115168.
33. Brown S., Margolin D.A., Altom L.K. [et al.] Morbidity following coloanal anastomosis: a comparison of colonic j-pouch vs straight anastomosis. Dis. Colon Rectum. 2018;61(2):156-161. (in Engl) doi: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000000960.
34. Pucciarelli S., Del Bianco P., Pace U. [et al.] Multicentre randomized clinical trial of colonic J pouch or straight stapled colorectal reconstruction after low anterior resection for rectal cancer. Br. J. Surg. 2019;106(9):1147-1155. (in Engl) doi: 10.1002/bjs.11222.
35. Parc Y., Ruppert R., Fuerst A. [et al.] Better function with a colonic j-pouch or a side-to-end anastomosis?: A randomized controlled trial to compare the complications, functional outcome, and quality of life in patients with low rectal cancer after a j-pouch or a side-toend anastomosis. Ann. Surg. 2019;269(5):815-826. (in Engl) doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003249.
36. Mrak K., Uranitsch S., Pedross F. [et al.] Diverting ileostomy versus no diversion after low anterior resection for rectal cancer: A prospective, randomized, multicenter trial. Surgery. 2016;159(4):1129-39. (in Engl) doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2015.11.006.
37. Zenger S., Gurbuz B., Can U. [et al.] Comparative study between ghost ileostomy and defunctioning ileostomy in terms of morbidity and cost-effectiveness in low anterior resection for rectal cancer. Langenbecks Arch. Surg. 2021;406(2):339-347. (in Engl) doi: 10.1007/s00423-021-02089-w.
38. Ito T., Obama K., Sato T. [et al.] Usefulness of transanal tube placement for prevention of anastomotic leakage following laparoscopic low anterior resection. Asian J. Endosc. Surg. 2017;10(1):17-22. (in Engl) doi: 10.1111/ases.12310.
39. Zhao S., Zhang L., Gao F. [et al.] Transanal drainage tube use for preventing anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic low anterior resection in patients with rectal cancer: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg. 2021;156(12):1151-1158. (in Engl) doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2021.4568.
40. Denost Q., Rouanet P., Faucheron J.L. [et al.] To drain or not to drain infraperitoneal anastomosis after rectal excision for cancer: the GRECCAR 5 randomized trial. Ann. Surg. 2017;265(3):474-480. (in Engl) doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001991.
41. Qu H., Liu Y., Bi D. 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. (in Engl)
42. Panda S., Connolly M.P., Ramirez M.G., Beltrán de Heredia J. Costs analysis of fibrin sealant for prevention of anastomotic leakage in lower colorectal surgery. Risk Manag. Healthc Policy. 2020;13:5-11. (in Engl) doi: 10.2147/RMHP.S221008.
43. Ramos D., Vázquez-Sequeiros E., Abadía P. [et al.] Endoscopic management of acute anastomotic leakage after low colorectal anastomosis with cyanoacrylate bioglue (Glubran 2). Endoscopy. 2021;53(4):E136-E137. (in Engl) doi: 10.1055/a-1216-0861.
44. Yang S.Y., Han J., Han Y.D. [et al.] Intraoperative colonoscopy for the assessment and prevention of anastomotic leakage in low anterior resection for rectal cancer. Int. J. Colorectal Dis. 2017;32(5):709-714. (in Engl) doi: 10.1007/s00384-017-2767-y
Review
For citations:
Ibatullin A.A., Prokopyev M.V., Eibov R.R., Kashapova A.R., Kholnazarzoda I., Baitullin D.I. SURGICAL ASPECTS OF PREVENTION OF COLORECTAL ANASTOMOSIC FAILURE. Bashkortostan Medical Journal. 2024;19(1):70-77. (In Russ.)
Views:
46
Email this article 
