Top

Surgical Endoscopy

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2017

Influence of multiple stapler firings used for rectal division on colorectal anastomotic leak rate

Authors: Tamara Braunschmid, Nikolaus Hartig, Lukas Baumann, Bernhard Dauser, Friedrich Herbst

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 12/2017

Abstract

Background

Anastomotic leakage following colorectal resection remains one of the most significant complications with relevant morbidity and mortality. There is evidence that a higher number of stapler firings for rectal division can affect the leak rate in double stapling anastomosis. However, there are no data concerning compression anastomosis. We present our institutional experience addressing this issue.

Design

This is a retrospective review of a prospective institutional database of patients undergoing colonic and rectal resection for benign and malignant indications between January 2008 and December 2014 at the surgical department of the St. John of God Hospital, Vienna. Inclusion criteria were rectal division with linear stapling devices and construction of anastomosis to the rectal stump using a circular stapler or compression device.

Results

Three hundred eighty two (196 female; 51.3%) patients were included. Mean age was 65.8 years (range: 18–95) Indications for the operation included diverticular disease (44.8%), colorectal carcinoma (51.6%), inflammatory bowel disease (1.8%), and adenoma (1.8%). A laparoscopic approach was employed in 334 cases (87.4%); in 170 patients (44.9%), a compression anastomosis was created. One, two, and three or more stapler cartridges were used for rectal division in 58.4, 33.5, and 8.1%, respectively. Male gender, neoadjuvant therapy, rectal cancer as an underlying disease, laparoscopic surgical approach, and duration of operation longer than 200 min are leading causes for the usage of more than one stapler cartridge. Overall leak rate was 4.7% (18/382). The only factor associated with the occurrence of leakage was the use of three or more stapler cartridges for the closure of the rectal stump (p = 0.002).

Conclusion

Our data support that multiple stapler firings for rectal division following colorectal resection has a major impact on anastomotic leak rate. Especially in laparoscopic surgery efforts should be made to minimize the number of stapler cartridges used.

Akiyoshi T et al (2011) Incidence of and risk factors for anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic anterior resection with intracorporeal rectal transection and double-stapling technique anastomosis for rectal cancer. Am J Surg 202(3):259–264CrossRefPubMed

Ito M et al (2008) Relationship between multiple numbers of stapler firings during rectal division and anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic rectal resection. Int J Colorectal Dis 23(7):703–707CrossRefPubMed

Kim JS et al (2009) Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic intracorporeal colorectal anastomosis with a double stapling technique. J Am Coll Surg 209(6):694–701CrossRefPubMed

Park JS et al (2013) Multicenter analysis of risk factors for anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic rectal cancer excision: the Korean laparoscopic colorectal surgery study group. Ann Surg 257(4):665–771CrossRefPubMed

Kawada K et al (2014) Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic low anterior resection with DST anastomosis. Surg Endosc 28(10):2988–2995CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Kim SH et al (2006) Laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer: a prospective analysis of thirty-month follow-up outcomes in 312 patients. Surg Endosc 20(8):1197–1202CrossRefPubMed

Masoomi H et al (2013) Compression anastomosis ring device in colorectal anastomosis: a review of 1,180 patients. Am J Surg 205(4):447–451CrossRefPubMed

Rahbari NN et al (2010) Definition and grading of anastomotic leakage following anterior resection of the rectum: a proposal by the International Study Group of Rectal Cancer. Surgery 147(3):339–351CrossRefPubMed

Caulfield H, Hyman NH (2013) Anastomotic leak after low anterior resection: a spectrum of clinical entities. JAMA Surg 148(2):177–182CrossRefPubMed

10.

Senn N (1893) Enterorrhaphy; it’s history, technique and present status. JAMA 21:21

11.

Mortensen NJ. Intestinal Anastomosis. In: ACS surgery: principles and practice. 5. Gastrointestinal Tract and Abdomen, 2008

12.

Docherty JG et al (1995) Comparison of manually constructed and stapled anastomoses in colorectal surgery. West of Scotland and Highland Anastomosis Study Group. Ann Surg 221(2):176–184CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Yamamoto S et al (2012) Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer using a stapling technique. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 22(3):239–243CrossRefPubMed

14.

Makela JT, Kiviniemi H, Laitinen S (2003) Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after left-sided colorectal resection with rectal anastomosis. Dis Colon Rectum 46(5):653–660CrossRefPubMed

15.

Akiyoshi T et al (2009) Safety of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for low rectal cancer with preoperative chemoradiation therapy. J Gastrointest Surg 13(3):521–525CrossRefPubMed

16.

Scheidbach H et al (2002) Laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection and anterior resection with curative intent for carcinoma of the rectum. Surg Endosc 16(1):7–13CrossRefPubMed

17.

Yeh CY et al (2005) Pelvic drainage and other risk factors for leakage after elective anterior resection in rectal cancer patients: a prospective study of 978 patients. Ann Surg 241(1):9–13PubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Dauser B et al (2013) Anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection for rectal cancer: comparison of stapled versus compression anastomosis. Langenbecks Arch Surg 398(7):957–964CrossRefPubMed

19.

WHO. Obesity and overweight—Fact sheet N311. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/. Accessed Aug 2014

20.

Seidell JC, Flegal KM (1997) Assessing obesity: classification and epidemiology. Br Med Bull 53(2):238–252CrossRefPubMed

21.

D’Hoore A et al (2015) COMPRES: a prospective postmarketing evaluation of the compression anastomosis ring CAR 27()/ColonRing(). Colorectal Dis 17(6):522–529CrossRefPubMed

22.

Matthiessen P et al (2004) Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after anterior resection of the rectum. Colorectal Dis 6(6):462–469CrossRefPubMed

23.

Levack M et al (2011) Laparoscopy decreases anastomotic leak rate in sigmoid colectomy for diverticulitis. Arch Surg 146(2):207–210CrossRefPubMed

24.

Matthiessen P et al (2007) Defunctioning stoma reduces symptomatic anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection of the rectum for cancer: a randomized multicenter trial. Ann Surg 246(2):207–214CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

25.

Dulucq JL et al (2005) Laparoscopic rectal resection with anal sphincter preservation for rectal cancer: long-term outcome. Surg Endosc 19(11):1468–1474CrossRefPubMed

26.

Jacobs M, Verdeja JC, Goldstein HS (1991) Minimally invasive colon resection (laparoscopic colectomy). Surg Laparosc Endosc 1(3):144–150PubMed

27.

Feliciotti F et al (2003) Long-term results of laparoscopic versus open resections for rectal cancer for 124 unselected patients. Surg Endosc 17(10):1530–1535CrossRefPubMed

28.

Zhang FW et al (2014) Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 15(22):9985–9996CrossRefPubMed

29.

Leroy J et al (2004) Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer surgery: long-term outcomes. Surg Endosc 18(2):281–289CrossRefPubMed

30.

Nussbaum DP et al (2015) Laparoscopic versus open low anterior resection for rectal cancer: results from the national cancer data base. J Gastrointest Surg. 19(1):124–131 discussion 131–132 CrossRefPubMed

31.

Zhou ZG et al (2004) Laparoscopic versus open total mesorectal excision with anal sphincter preservation for low rectal cancer. Surg Endosc 18(8):1211–1215CrossRefPubMed

32.

Lacy AM et al (2002) Laparoscopy-assisted colectomy versus open colectomy for treatment of non-metastatic colon cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet 359(9325):2224–2229CrossRefPubMed

Title: Influence of multiple stapler firings used for rectal division on colorectal anastomotic leak rate
Authors: Tamara Braunschmid
Nikolaus Hartig
Lukas Baumann
Bernhard Dauser
Friedrich Herbst
Publication date: 01-12-2017
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 12/2017
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5611-0

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Influence of multiple stapler firings used for rectal division on colorectal anastomotic leak rate

Abstract

Background

Design

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Design

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 12/2017

The model for end-stage liver disease predicts outcomes in patients undergoing cholecystectomy

Standardizing hysteroscopy teaching: development of a curriculum using the Delphi method

A systematic review and meta-analysis concerning single-site laparoscopic percutaneous extraperitoneal closure for pediatric inguinal hernia and hydrocele

A comparison between totally laparoscopic hydrocelectomy and scrotal incision hydrocelectomy with laparoscopic high ligation for pediatric cord hydrocele

Feasibility of real-time location systems in monitoring recovery after major abdominal surgery

Applications of fusion-fluorescence imaging using indocyanine green in laparoscopic hepatectomy