Advertisement

Techniques for Colorectal Anastomotic Construction Following Proctectomy and Variables Influencing Anastomotic Leak

  • Seth FelderEmail author
  • Janet T. Lee
Surgery and Surgical Innovations in Colorectal Cancer (S Huerta, Section Editor)
  • 7 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Surgery and Surgical Innovations in Colorectal Cancer

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Examine the various technical considerations for pelvic colorectal reconstruction with respective functional and anastomotic healing outcomes. Additionally, several adjuncts to reduce anastomotic complications are individually explored to understand their relative impact on anastomotic healing.

Recent Findings

The benefit of a colorectal reservoir reconstruction instead of a straight anastomosis, in respect to leak and functional outcomes, is marginal, if any. Recent randomized evidence has shown no difference in morbidity, mortality, survival, leakage, or functional outcomes. Unfortunately, anastomotic leakage still occurs in the ideally constructed and managed pelvic anastomosis; however, modifiable variables appear to reduce the risk.

Summary

Pelvic colorectal anastomosis should be based on the surgeon’s technical ability and comfort level, since the evidence suggests that all techniques are comparable. There may be a slight advantage to colonic J-pouch anastomosis, although this has not been consistently shown. Future studies on the etiology of low anterior resection syndrome may provide insight on optimal reconstruction techniques.

Keywords

Low anterior resection Proctectomy Colorectal anastomosis Anastomotic leak Colonic pouch anastomosis Coloplasty 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Kingham TP, Pachter HL. Colonic anastomotic leak: risk factors, diagnosis, and treatment. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;208(2):269–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Neutzling CB, et al. Stapled versus handsewn methods for colorectal anastomosis surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;(2):CD003144.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Slieker JC, Daams F, Mulder IM, Jeekel J, Lange JF. Systematic review of the technique of colorectal anastomosis. JAMA Surg. 2013;148(2):190–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Martellucci J. Low anterior resection syndrome: a treatment algorithm. Dis Colon Rectum. 2016;59(1):79–82.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bryant CL, Lunniss PJ, Knowles CH, Thaha MA, Chan CL. Anterior resection syndrome. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13:e403–8.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lazorthes F, Gamagami R, Chiotasso P, Istvan G, Muhammad S. Prospective, randomized study comparing clinical results between small and large colonic J-pouch following coloanal anastomosis. Dis Colon Rectum. 1997;40(12):1409–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baker JW. Low end to side rectosigmoidal anastomosis; description of technic. Arch Surg. 1950;61(1):143–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hallbook O, et al. Randomized comparison of straight and colonic J pouch anastomosis after low anterior resection. Ann Surg. 1996;224(1):58–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    •• Fazio VW, et al. A randomized multicenter trial to compare long-term functional outcome, quality of life, and complications of surgical procedures for low rectal cancers. Ann Surg. 2007;246(3):481–8 discussion 488–90. An important RCT comparing J pouch to coloplasty and coloplasty to straight end-to-end anastomosis demonstrating functional superiority of pouch to coloplasty but no difference between colopasty and straight anastomosis.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hida J, Yoshifuji T, Tokoro T, Inoue K, Matsuzaki T, Okuno K, et al. Comparison of long-term functional results of colonic J-pouch and straight anastomosis after low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a five-year follow-up. Dis Colon Rectum. 2004;47(10):1578–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Huber FT, Herter B, Siewert JR. Colonic pouch vs. side-to-end anastomosis in low anterior resection. Dis Colon Rectum. 1999;42(7):896–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    •• Marti, W.R., et al., Clinical outcome after rectal replacement with side-to-end, colon-J-pouch, or straight colorectal anastomosis following total mesorectal excision: a Swiss prospective, randomized, multicenter trial (SAKK 40/04). Ann Surg, 2018. A major RCT that showed no difference in functional outcomes between anastomotic configurations. Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Thompson SK, Chang EY, Jobe BA. Clinical review: healing in gastrointestinal anastomoses, part I. Microsurgery. 2006;26(3):131–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hawley PR. Causes and prevention of colonic anastomotic breakdown. Dis Colon Rectum. 1973;16(4):272–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Thornton FJ, Barbul A. Healing in the gastrointestinal tract. Surg Clin North Am. 1997;77(3):549–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cohn I Jr, Rives JD. Antibiotic protection of colon anastomoses. Ann Surg. 1955;141(5):707–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    LeVeen HH, Wapnick S, Falk G, Olivas O, Bhat D, Gaurdre M, et al. Effects of prophylactic antibiotics on colonic healing. Am J Surg. 1976;131(1):47–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shogan BD, et al. Collagen degradation and MMP9 activation by enterococcus faecalis contribute to intestinal anastomotic leak. Sci Transl Med. 2015;7(286):286ra68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shogan BD, Smith DP, Christley S, Gilbert JA, Zaborina O, Alverdy JC. Intestinal anastomotic injury alters spatially defined microbiome composition and function. Microbiome. 2014;2:35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Scarborough JE, Mantyh CR, Sun Z, Migaly J. Combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation reduces incisional surgical site infection and anastomotic leak rates after elective colorectal resection: an analysis of colectomy-targeted ACS NSQIP. Ann Surg. 2015;262(2):331–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kiran RP, et al. Combined preoperative mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics significantly reduces surgical site infection, anastomotic leak, and ileus after colorectal surgery. Ann Surg. 2015;262(3):416–25 discussion 423–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    McSorley ST, Steele CW, McMahon AJ. Meta-analysis of oral antibiotics, in combination with preoperative intravenous antibiotics and mechanical bowel preparation the day before surgery, compared with intravenous antibiotics and mechanical bowel preparation alone to reduce surgical-site infections in elective colorectal surgery. BJS Open. 2018;2(4):185–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    •• European Society of Coloproctology collaborating, G. Association of mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics and anastomotic leak following left sided colorectal resection: an international, multi-centre, prospective audit. Color Dis. 2018;20(Suppl 6):15–32 A large prospective "real world" analysis showing a reduction in anastomotic leakage when mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics is administered for left sided colorectal anastomoses.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jung B, Påhlman L, Nyström PO, Nilsson E, for the Mechanical Bowel Preparation Study Group. Multicentre randomized clinical trial of mechanical bowel preparation in elective colonic resection. Br J Surg. 2007;94(6):689–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bucher P, et al. Mechanical bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis. Arch Surg. 2004;139(12):1359–64 discussion 1365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Senagore A. Difficult Decisions in Colorectal Surgery. In: Ferguson M, editor. Difficult decisions in surgery: an evidence-based approach. Switzerland: Springer; 2017.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lange MM, Buunen M, van de Velde CJH, Lange JF. Level of arterial ligation in rectal cancer surgery: low tie preferred over high tie. A review. Dis Colon Rectum. 2008;51(7):1139–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lange JF, Komen N, Akkerman G, Nout E, Horstmanshoff H, Schlesinger F, et al. Riolan’s arch: confusing, misnomer, and obsolete. A literature survey of the connection(s) between the superior and inferior mesenteric arteries. Am J Surg. 2007;193(6):742–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Matsuda K, Hotta T, Takifuji K, Yokoyama S, Oku Y, Watanabe T, et al. Randomized clinical trial of defaecatory function after anterior resection for rectal cancer with high versus low ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery. Br J Surg. 2015;102(5):501–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Koda K, Saito N, Seike K, Shimizu K, Kosugi C, Miyazaki M. Denervation of the neorectum as a potential cause of defecatory disorder following low anterior resection for rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2005;48(2):210–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    •• Fujii S, et al. Randomized clinical trial of high versus low inferior mesenteric artery ligation during anterior resection for rectal cancer. BJS Open. 2018;2(4):195–202 A RCT of "high vs low" tie vessel ligation showing no difference in rate of anastomotic leak.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    • Bonnet S, et al. High tie versus low tie vascular ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery in colorectal cancer surgery: impact on the gain in colon length and implications on the feasibility of anastomoses. Dis Colon Rectum. 2012;55(5):515–21 A cadaver anatomic study demonstrating the impact and feasibility of low anastomosis by demonstrating successive gain in length of colon reach with increasing level of vascular ligation.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Nachiappan S, Askari A, Currie A, Kennedy RH, Faiz O. Intraoperative assessment of colorectal anastomotic integrity: a systematic review. Surg Endosc. 2014;28(9):2513–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Beard JD, Nicholson ML, Sayers RD, Lloyd D, Everson NW. Intraoperative air testing of colorectal anastomoses: a prospective, randomized trial. Br J Surg. 1990;77(10):1095–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Li VK, et al. Use of routine intraoperative endoscopy in elective laparoscopic colorectal surgery: can it further avoid anastomotic failure? Surg Endosc. 2009;23(11):2459–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    •• Ricciardi R, et al. Anastomotic leak testing after colorectal resection: what are the data? Arch Surg. 2009;144(5):407–11 discussion 411–2. A large institutional experience reporting the impact of mechanical leak testing on anastomotic leak rates, suggesting its high clinical value and implications when a positive leak test is identified.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Singh DB, et al. Intraoperative measurement of colonic oxygenation during bowel resection. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2009;645:261–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Boni L, Fingerhut A, Marzorati A, Rausei S, Dionigi G, Cassinotti E. Indocyanine green fluorescence angiography during laparoscopic low anterior resection: results of a case-matched study. Surg Endosc. 2017;31(4):1836–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    • Jafari MD, et al. Perfusion assessment in laparoscopic left-sided/anterior resection (PILLAR II): a multi-institutional study. J Am Coll Surg. 2015;220(1):82–92 e1 The landmark prospective trial investigating fluorescence angiography to assess perfusion of the colonic conduit showed feasibility, but no definitive evidence in reduction in anastomotic leakage rates.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Shen R, Zhang Y, Wang T. Indocyanine green fluorescence angiography and the incidence of anastomotic leak after colorectal resection for colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Dis Colon Rectum. 2018;61(10):1228–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kin C, Vo H, Welton L, Welton M. Equivocal effect of intraoperative fluorescence angiography on colorectal anastomotic leaks. Dis Colon Rectum. 2015;58(6):582–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    • Montedori, A., et al., Covering ileo- or colostomy in anterior resection for rectal carcinoma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2010(5): p. CD006878. A Cochrane review of 6 RCT's showing significant reduction in anastomotic leak and re-operation when fecally diverted after a pelvic colorectal anastomosis. Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Thoker M, Wani I, Parray FQ, Khan N, Mir SA, Thoker P. Role of diversion ileostomy in low rectal cancer: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Surg. 2014;12(9):945–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Chude GG, et al. Defunctioning loop ileostomy with low anterior resection for distal rectal cancer: should we make an ileostomy as a routine procedure? A prospective randomized study. Hepatogastroenterology. 2008;55(86–87):1562–7.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Matthiessen P, Hallbk O, Rutegrd J, Simert G, Sjdahl R. Defunctioning stoma reduces symptomatic anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection of the rectum for cancer: a randomized multicenter trial. Ann Surg. 2007;246(2):207–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Sagar PM, Hartley MN, Macfie J, Mancey-Jones B, Sedman P, May J. Randomized trial of pelvic drainage after rectal resection. Dis Colon Rectum. 1995;38(3):254–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Merad F, Hay JM, Fingerhut A, Yahchouchi E, Laborde Y, Pélissier E, et al. Is prophylactic pelvic drainage useful after elective rectal or anal anastomosis? A multicenter controlled randomized trial. French Association for Surgical Research. Surgery. 1999;125(5):529–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    •• Denost Q, 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):474–80 A major RCT comparing drain or no drain in patients undergoing infraperitoneal anastomosis showing no difference in pelvic septic complications, rate of re-operation, or somta closure between the groups, suggesting drain placement intraoperatively does not confer benefit.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Rondelli F, Bugiantella W, Vedovati MC, Balzarotti R, Avenia N, Mariani E, et al. To drain or not to drain extraperitoneal colorectal anastomosis? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Color Dis. 2014;16(2):O35–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Klein M, Gogenur I, Rosenberg J. Postoperative use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in patients with anastomotic leakage requiring reoperation after colorectal resection: cohort study based on prospective data. BMJ. 2012;345:e6166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Kverneng Hultberg D, Angenete E, Lydrup ML, Rutegård J, Matthiessen P, Rutegård M. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and the risk of anastomotic leakage after anterior resection for rectal cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017;43(10):1908–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Inan A, Koca C, Sen M. Effects of diclofenac sodium on bursting pressures of anastomoses and hydroxyproline contents of perianastomotic tissues in a laboratory study. Int J Surg. 2006;4(4):222–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    de Sousa JB, Soares EG, Aprilli F. Effects of diclofenac sodium on intestinal anastomotic healing. Experimental study on the small intestine of rabbits. Dis Colon Rectum. 1991;34(7):613–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Klein M, Krarup PM, Kongsbak MB, Ågren MS, Gögenur I, Jorgensen LN, et al. Effect of postoperative diclofenac on anastomotic healing, skin wounds and subcutaneous collagen accumulation: a randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled, experimental study. Eur Surg Res. 2012;48(2):73–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Kotagal M, Hakkarainen TW, Simianu VV, Beck SJ, Alfonso-Cristancho R, Flum DR. Ketorolac use and postoperative complications in gastrointestinal surgery. Ann Surg. 2016;263(1):71–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    • Smith SA, et al. Postoperative nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use and intestinal anastomotic dehiscence: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dis Colon Rectum. 2016;59(11):1087–97 A meta-analysis showing no significant increase in anastomotic leak among the included RCT's (n=6), however, a statistically signficant increase in leak rate among the included observation studies (n=11). CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Gastrointestinal Oncology, Colorectal Surgical OncologyMoffitt Cancer CenterTampaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Oncologic Sciences, MDC 44, College of MedicineUniversity of South FloridaTampaUSA
  3. 3.Division of Colon & Rectal SurgeryUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations