Increased Local Recurrence and Reduced Survival From Colorectal Cancer Following Anastomotic Leak Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
ABSTRACT To examine the long-term oncological impact of anastomotic leakage (AL) after restorative surgery for colorectal cancer using meta-analytical methods. Outcomes evaluated were local recurrence, distant recurrence, and survival.
Recurrence after potentially curative surgery for colorectal cancer remains a significant clinical problem and has a poor prognosis. AL may be a risk factor for disease recurrence, however available studies have been conflicting. A meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the impact of AL on disease recurrence and long-term survival.
Studies published between 1965 and 2009 evaluating the long-term oncological impact of AL were identified by an electronic literature search. Outcomes evaluated included local recurrence, distant recurrence, and cancer specific survival. Meta-analysis was performed using the DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model to compute odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals. Study heterogeneity was evaluated using Q statistics and I and publication bias assessed with funnel plots and Egger's test.
Twenty-one studies comprising 13 prospective nonrandomized studies, 1 prospective randomized, and 7 retrospective studies met the inclusion criteria, yielding a total of 21,902 patients. For rectal anastomoses, the odd ratios (OR) of developing a local recurrence when there was AL was 2.05 (95% CI = 1.51-2.8; P = 0.0001). For studies describing both colon and rectal anastomoses, the OR of local recurrence when there was an AL was 2.9 (95% CI = 1.78-4.71; P < 0.001). The OR of developing a distant recurrence after AL was 1.38 (95% CI = 0.96-1.99; P = 0.083). Long term cancer specific mortality was significantly higher after AL with an OR of 1.75 (95% CI = 1.47-2.1; P = 0.0001).
AL has a negative prognostic impact on local recurrence after restorative resection of rectal cancer. A significant association between colorectal AL and reduced long-term cancer specific survival was also noted. No association between AL and distant recurrence was found.
SourceAvailable from: Ignace H J T de Hingh[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Background Postoperative ileus and anastomotic leakage are important complications following colorectal surgery associated with short-term morbidity and mortality. Previous experimental and preclinical studies have shown that a short intervention with enriched enteral nutrition dampens inflammation via stimulation of the autonomic nervous system and thereby reduces postoperative ileus. Furthermore, early administration of enteral nutrition reduced anastomotic leakage. This study will investigate the effect of nutritional stimulation of the autonomic nervous system just before, during and early after colorectal surgery on inflammation, postoperative ileus and anastomotic leakage.Methods/DesignThis multicenter, prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial will include 280 patients undergoing colorectal surgery. All patients will receive a selfmigrating nasojejunal tube that will be connected to a specially designed blinded tubing system. Patients will be allocated either to the intervention group, receiving perioperative nutrition, or to the control group, receiving no nutrition. The primary endpoint is postoperative ileus. Secondary endpoints include anastomotic leakage, local and systemic inflammation, (aspiration) pneumonia, surgical complications classified according to Clavien-Dindo, quality of life, gut barrier integrity and time until functional recovery. Furthermore, a cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed.DiscussionActivation of the autonomic nervous system via perioperative enteral feeding is expected to dampen the local and systemic inflammatory response. Consequently, postoperative ileus will be reduced as well as anastomotic leakage. The present study is the first to investigate the effects of enriched nutrition given shortly before, during and after surgery in a clinical setting.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02175979 - date of registration: 25 June 2014.Dutch Trial Registry: NTR4670 - date of registration: 1 August 2014.Trials 01/2015; 16(1):20. DOI:10.1186/s13063-014-0532-x · 2.12 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Background Anastomotic leak (AL) represents a dreaded complication following colorectal surgery, with a prevalence of 1–19 per cent. There remains a lack of consensus regarding factors that may predispose to AL and the relative risks associated with them. The objective was to perform a systematic review of the literature, focusing on the role of preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative factors in the development of colorectal ALs.MethodsA systematic review was performed to identify adjustable and non-adjustable preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative factors in the pathogenesis of AL. Additionally, a severity grading system was proposed to guide treatment.ResultsOf 1707 papers screened, 451 fulfilled the criteria for inclusion in the review. Significant preoperative risk factors were: male sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists fitness grade above II, renal disease, co-morbidity and history of radiotherapy. Tumour-related factors were: distal site, size larger than 3 cm, advanced stage, emergency surgery and metastatic disease. Adjustable risk factors were: smoking, obesity, poor nutrition, alcohol excess, immunosuppressants and bevacizumab. Intraoperative risk factors were: blood loss/transfusion and duration of surgery more than 4 h. Stomas lessen the consequences but not the prevalence of AL. In the postoperative period, CT is the most commonly used imaging tool, with or without rectal contrast, and a C-reactive protein level exceeding 150 mg/l on day 3–5 is the most sensitive biochemical marker. A five-level classification system for AL severity and appropriate management is presented.Conclusion Specific risk factors and their potential correction or indications for stoma were identified. An AL severity score is proposed to aid clinical decision-making.British Journal of Surgery 02/2015; 102(5). DOI:10.1002/bjs.9697 · 4.84 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The role of fecal diversion using a loop ileostomy in patients undergoing rectal resection and anastomosis is controversial. There has been conflicting evidence on the perceived benefit vs. the morbidity of a defunctioning stoma. This is a review of the relevant surgical literature evaluating the risks, benefits, and costs of constructing a diverting ileostomy in current colorectal surgical practice. Retrospective and prospective articles spanning the past 50 years were reviewed to identify the definition of an anastomotic leak (AL), evaluate risk factors for AL, and assess methods of evaluation of the anastomosis. We then pooled the evidence for and against fecal diversion, the incidence and consequences of stomal complications, and the evidence comparing loop ileostomy vs. loop colostomy as the optimal method of fecal diversion. Evidence shows that despite the fact that fecal diversion does not decrease postoperative mortality, it does significantly decrease the risk of anastomotic leak and the need for urgent reoperation when a leak does occur. Diverting stomas are a low-risk surgical procedure from a technical standpoint but carry substantial postoperative morbidity that can greatly hamper patients' quality of life and recovery. High-risk patients such as those with low colorectal anastomoses (<10 cm from anal verge), colo-anal anastomoses, technically difficult resections, malnutrition, and male patients seem to reap the greatest benefit from fecal diversion. Fecal diversion is recommended as a selective tool to protect or ameliorate an anastomotic leak after a colorectal anastomosis. It is most beneficial when used selectively in high-risk patients with low pelvic anastomoses that are at an increased risk for AL. New tools are needed to identify patients at high risk for anastomotic failure after anterior resection.Langenbeck s Archives of Surgery 01/2015; 400(2). DOI:10.1007/s00423-015-1275-1 · 2.16 Impact Factor