Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
International Journal of Colorectal Disease
Published in: International Journal of Colorectal Disease 12/2022

17-11-2022 | Rectal Cancer | Research

Preliminary evaluation of two-row versus three-row circular staplers for colorectal anastomosis after rectal resection: a single-center retrospective analysis

Authors: Giuseppe Quero, Claudio Fiorillo, Roberta Menghi, Fausto Rosa, Giuseppe Massimiani, Carlo Alberto Schena, Davide De Sio, Vito Laterza, Chiara Lucinato, Valerio Papa, Vincenzo Tondolo, Sergio Alfieri

Published in: International Journal of Colorectal Disease | Issue 12/2022

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Circular staplers for colorectal anastomoses significantly ameliorated post-operative outcomes after rectal resection. The more recent three-row technology was conceived to improve anastomotic resistance and, thus, lower the incidence of anastomotic complications. The aim of this study was to evaluate potential advantages of three-row circular staplers (Three-CS) on anastomotic leakage (AL), stenosis (AS), and hemorrhage (AH) rates after rectal resection as compared to two-row circular staplers (Two-CS).

Methods

All rectal resections for rectal cancer between 2016 and 2021 were retrospectively included. Patients were classified according to the circular stapler employed in Two-CS and Three-CS cohorts. AL, AS, and AH rates were compared between the two populations. Additionally, the prognostic role of the type of circular stapler on AL onset was evaluated.

Results

Three-hundred and seventy-five patients underwent a rectal resection with an end-to-end anastomosis during the study period: 197 constituted the Two-CS group and 178 the Three-CS cohort. AL rate was 6.7%, significantly higher in the Two-CS group (19–9.6%) as compared to the Three-CS cohort (6–3.4%) (p = 0.01). No difference was noted in terms of AL severity. Although not statistically significant, a lower incidence rate of AL was evidenced even in the subset of patients with low rectal cancers (4.5% vs 12.5% in the two-row cohort; p = 0.33). At the multivariate analysis, Two-CS was a negative prognostic factor for AL onset (OR: 2.63; p = 0.03). No difference was noted between the two groups in terms of AS and AH.

Conclusion

Three-row CSs significantly decrease the rate of AL after rectal resection. Further multicenter controlled trials are still needed to confirm the advantages of three-row CSs on anastomotic complications.
Literature
1.
Angelucci GP, Sinibaldi G, Orsaria P, Arcudi C, Colizza S (2013) Morbidity and mortality after colorectal surgery for cancer. Surg Sci 4(11):520–524CrossRef
2.
Alves A, Panis Y, Mathieu P, Mantion G, Kwiatkowski F, Slim K, Association Francaise de C (2005) Postoperative mortality and morbidity in French patients undergoing colorectal surgery: results of a prospective multicenter study. Arch Surg 140:278–283, discussion 284
3.
Paun BC, Cassie S, MacLean AR, Dixon E, Buie WD (2010) Postoperative complications following surgery for rectal cancer. Ann Surg 251:807–818CrossRef
4.
Sartori A, De Luca M, Fiscon V, Frego M, group Csw, Portale G, (2019) Retrospective multicenter study of post-operative stenosis after stapled colorectal anastomosis. Updates Surg 71:539–542CrossRef
5.
Clifford RE, Fowler H, Govindarajah N, Vimalachandran D, Sutton PA (2019) Early anastomotic complications in colorectal surgery: a systematic review of techniques for endoscopic salvage. Surg Endosc 33:1049–1065CrossRef
6.
Walker KG, Bell SW, Rickard MJ, Mehanna D, Dent OF, Chapuis PH, Bokey EL (2004) Anastomotic leakage is predictive of diminished survival after potentially curative resection for colorectal cancer. Ann Surg 240:255–259CrossRef
7.
McArdle CS, McMillan DC, Hole DJ (2005) Impact of anastomotic leakage on long-term survival of patients undergoing curative resection for colorectal cancer. Br J Surg 92:1150–1154CrossRef
8.
Knight CD, Griffen FD (1980) An improved technique for low anterior resection of the rectum using the EEA stapler. Surgery 88:710–714
9.
Heald RJ, Leicester RJ (1981) The low stapled anastomosis. Dis Colon Rectum 24:437–444CrossRef
10.
Hansen O, Schwenk W, Hucke HP, Stock W (1996) Colorectal stapled anastomoses experiences and results. Dis Colon Rectum 39:30–36CrossRef
11.
Chassin JL, Rifkind KM, Turner JW (1984) Errors and pitfalls in stapling gastrointestinal tract anastomoses. Surg Clin North Am 64:441–459CrossRef
12.
Fleshman JW, Smallwood N (2015) Current concepts in rectal cancer. Clin Colon Rectal Surg 28:5–11CrossRef
13.
Mery CM, Shafi BM, Binyamin G, Morton JM, Gertner M (2008) Profiling surgical staplers: effect of staple height, buttress, and overlap on staple line failure. Surg Obes Relat Dis 4:416–422CrossRef
14.
Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, Vauthey JN, Dindo D, Schulick RD, de Santibanes E, Pekolj J, Slankamenac K, Bassi C, Graf R, Vonlanthen R, Padbury R, Cameron JL, Makuuchi M (2009) The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg 250:187–196CrossRef
15.
Rahbari NN, Weitz J, Hohenberger W, Heald RJ, Moran B, Ulrich A, Holm T, Wong WD, Tiret E, Moriya Y, Laurberg S, den Dulk M, van de Velde C, Buchler MW (2010) Definition and grading of anastomotic leakage following anterior resection of the rectum: a proposal by the International Study Group of Rectal Cancer. Surgery 147:339–351CrossRef
16.
Serur A, Rhee R, Ramjist J (2020) Current nonoperative therapeutic interventions for lower gastrointestinal hemorrhage. Clin Colon Rectal Surg 33:22–27CrossRef
17.
Kraenzler A, Maggiori L, Pittet O, Alyami MS, AlDJ P, Panis Y (2017) Anastomotic stenosis after coloanal, colorectal and ileoanal anastomosis: what is the best management? Colorectal Dis 19:O90–O96CrossRef
18.
Alfieri S, Di Miceli D, Menghi R, Cina C, Fiorillo C, Prioli F, Rosa F, Doglietto GB, Quero G (2018) Single-docking full robotic surgery for rectal cancer: a single-center experience. Surg Innov 25:258–266CrossRef
19.
Fiorillo C, Quero G, Menghi R, Cina C, Laterza V, De Sio D, Longo F, Alfieri S (2021) Robotic rectal resection: oncologic outcomes. Updates Surg 73:1081–1091CrossRef
20.
Griffen FD, Knight CD Sr, Knight CD Jr (1992) Results of the double stapling procedure in pelvic surgery. World J Surg 16:866–871CrossRef
21.
Kulu Y, Ulrich A, Bruckner T, Contin P, Welsch T, Rahbari NN, Buchler MW, Weitz J, International Study Group of Rectal C (2013) Validation of the International Study Group of Rectal Cancer definition and severity grading of anastomotic leakage. Surgery 153:753-761
22.
Hashemi L, Mukherjee N, Morseon M, Sirkar R (2012) Economic impact of anastomotic leaks in colectomy procedures in the USA: 2005–2009. SAGES 2012 Meeting, San Diego, CA, United States
23.
Komen N, Dijk JW, Lalmahomed Z, Klop K, Hop W, Kleinrensink GJ, Jeekel H, Ruud Schouten W, Lange JF (2009) After-hours colorectal surgery: a risk factor for anastomotic leakage. Int J Colorectal Dis 24:789–795CrossRef
24.
Lipska MA, Bissett IP, Parry BR, Merrie AE (2006) Anastomotic leakage after lower gastrointestinal anastomosis: men are at a higher risk. ANZ J Surg 76:579–585CrossRef
25.
Platell C, Barwood N, Dorfmann G, Makin G (2007) The incidence of anastomotic leaks in patients undergoing colorectal surgery. Colorectal Dis 9:71–79CrossRef
26.
Caulfield H, Hyman NH (2013) Anastomotic leak after low anterior resection: a spectrum of clinical entities. JAMA Surg 148:177–182CrossRef
27.
Senagore A, Milsom JW, Walshaw RK, Dunstan R, Mazier WP, Chaudry IH (1990) Intramural pH: a quantitative measurement for predicting colorectal anastomotic healing. Dis Colon Rectum 33:175–179CrossRef
28.
Orsay CP, Bass EM, Firfer B, Ramakrishnan V, Abcarian H (1995) Blood flow in colon anastomotic stricture formation. Dis Colon Rectum 38:202–206CrossRef
29.
Chung RS, Hitch DC, Armstrong DN (1988) The role of tissue ischemia in the pathogenesis of anastomotic stricture. Surgery 104:824–829
30.
Waxman BP, Ramsay AH (1986) The effect of stapler diameter and proximal colostomy on narrowing at experimental circular stapled large bowel anastomoses. Aust N Z J Surg 56:797–801CrossRef
31.
Virgilio C, Cosentino S, Favara C, Russo V, Russo A (1995) Endoscopic treatment of postoperative colonic strictures using an achalasia dilator: short-term and long-term results. Endoscopy 27:219–222CrossRef
32.
Graffner H, Fredlund P, Olsson SA, Oscarson J, Petersson BG (1983) Protective colostomy in low anterior resection of the rectum using the EEA stapling instrument. A randomized study Dis Colon Rectum 26:87–90CrossRef
33.
MacRae HM, McLeod RS (1998) Handsewn vs. stapled anastomoses in colon and rectal surgery: a meta-analysis. Dis Colon Rectum 41:180–189CrossRef
34.
Luchtefeld MA, Milsom JW, Senagore A, Surrell JA, Mazier WP (1989) Colorectal anastomotic stenosis. Results of a survey of the ASCRS membership. Dis Colon Rectum 32:733–736CrossRef
35.
Dziki AJ, Duncan MD, Harmon JW, Saini N, Malthaner RA, Trad KS, Fernicola MT, Hakki F, Ugarte RM (1991) Advantages of handsewn over stapled bowel anastomosis. Dis Colon Rectum 34:442–448CrossRef
36.
Hoedema RE, Luchtefeld MA (2005) The management of lower gastrointestinal hemorrhage. Dis Colon Rectum 48:2010–2024CrossRef
37.
Lustosa SA, Matos D, Atallah AN, Castro AA (2001) Stapled versus handsewn methods for colorectal anastomosis surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev:CD003144
38.
Kyzer S, Gordon PH (1992) Experience with the use of the circular stapler in rectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 35:696–706CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Preliminary evaluation of two-row versus three-row circular staplers for colorectal anastomosis after rectal resection: a single-center retrospective analysis
Authors
Giuseppe Quero
Claudio Fiorillo
Roberta Menghi
Fausto Rosa
Giuseppe Massimiani
Carlo Alberto Schena
Davide De Sio
Vito Laterza
Chiara Lucinato
Valerio Papa
Vincenzo Tondolo
Sergio Alfieri
Publication date
17-11-2022
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
International Journal of Colorectal Disease / Issue 12/2022
Print ISSN: 0179-1958
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1262
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-022-04283-8

Other articles of this Issue 12/2022

International Journal of Colorectal Disease 12/2022 Go to the issue

Correspondence

A delay in the diagnosis of colorectal cancer screened by fecal immunochemical tests during the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal cohort study

Research

Preoperative prediction of lymph node status in patients with colorectal cancer. Developing a predictive model using machine learning

Research

Clinical features of young onset colorectal cancer patients from a large cohort at a single cancer center

Correction

Correction to: Disease recurrence in patients with Crohn’s disease after biologic therapy or surgery: a meta-analysis

Research

Local excision of T1 colorectal cancer: good differentiation, absence of lymphovascular invasion, and limited tumor radial infiltration (≤4.25 mm) may allow avoiding radical surgery

Research

A clinical prediction model for the presence of brain metastases from colorectal cancer