Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Laparoscopic delayed coloanal anastomosis without diverting ileostomy for low rectal cancer surgery: 85 consecutive patients from a single institution

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Techniques in Coloproctology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Surgical treatment for low rectal cancer septic complications often requires an ileostomy for fecal diversion. Delayed coloanal anastomosis (CAA) has been performed for several years to reduce septic complications and to avoid ileostomy. The aim of this study was to report the technical, functional and oncological results of delayed CAA in patients operated on for low rectal cancer focusing on pelvic septic complications.

Methods

All consecutive patients operated on for low rectal cancer suitable for total mesorectal excision and two-step delayed CAA at a single institution between May 2000 and September 2013 were included in the study. Patients’ characteristics, operative and postoperative outcomes, long-term technical, functional and oncological results from a prospectively maintained database, were retrospectively analyzed.

Results

A total of 85 consecutive patients (69 men), of median age 63 years (range 42–83 years) were included. Median delay between the first and the second step of the operation was 6 days (range 2–13 days). Twenty-one patients (25%) developed pelvic sepsis, nine of them (10.6%) developed an anastomotic leak. Twenty-three patients had a definitive stoma at the end of follow-up. Seventeen patients (29%) experienced a poor functional result. Thirty-three patients (38%) presented with recurrence at a median follow-up of 59 months (range 12–135 months). Seven (8.2%) developed a local recurrence, 18 a distant metastasis (21.1%) and 8 (9.4%) both a local and distant recurrence.

Conclusions

In our series, laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with delayed coloanal anastomosis was associated with septic complications and oncologic results similar to those reported after total mesorectal excision with conventional anastomosis and ileostomy, nearly one-third of patients experience a poor functional result. A randomized trial comparing these two options for low rectal cancer is under way.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Heald RJ, Ryall RDH (1986) Recurrence and survival after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Lancet 327:1479–1482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Nesbakken A, Nygaard K, Lunde OC (2001) Outcome and late functional results after anastomosis leakage following mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Br J Surg 88:400–404

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Eriksen MT, Wibe A, Norstein J, Haffner J, Wiig JN (2005) Anastomotic leakage following routine mesorectal excision for rectal cancer in a national cohort of patients. Colorectal Dis 7:51–57

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Longo WE, Virgo KS, Johnson FE et al (1998) Outcome after proctectomy for rectal cancer in Department of Veterans Affairs Hospitals: a report from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Ann Surg 228:64–70

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Bell SW, Walker KG, Rickard MJ et al (2003) Anastomotic leakage after curative anterior resection results in a higher prevalence of local recurrence. Br J Surg 90:1261–1266

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Walker KG, Bell SW, Rickard MJ et al (2004) Anastomotic leakage is predictive of diminished survival after potentially curative resection for colorectal cancer. Ann Surg 240:255–259

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Edwards DP, Leppington-Clarke A, Sexton R, Heald RJ, Moran BJ (2001) Stoma-related complications are more frequent after transverse colostomy than loop ileostomy: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Br J Surg 88:360–363

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Law WL, Chu KW, Choi HK (2002) Randomized clinical trial comparing loop ileostomy and loop transverse colostomy for faecal diversion following total mesorectal excision. Br J Surg 89:704–708

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Gessler B, Haglind E, Angenete E (2012) Loop ileostomies in colorectal cancer patients—morbidity and risk factors for non reversal. J Surg Res 178:708–714

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Sharma A, Deeb AP, Rickles AS, Iannuzzi JC, Monson JR, Fleming SJ (2013) Closure of defunctioning loop ileostomy is associated with considerable morbidity. Colorectal Dis 15:458–462

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Musters GD, Atema JJ, van Westreenen HL, Buskens CJ, Bemelman WA, Tanis PJ (2016) Ileostomy closure by colorectal surgeons results in less major morbidity: results from an institutional change in practice and awareness. Int J Colorectal Dis 31:661–667

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Man VC, Choi HK, Law WL, Foo DC (2016) Morbidities after closure of ileostomy: analysis of risk factors. Int J Colorectal Dis 31:51–57

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Danielsen AK, Park J, Jansen JE et al (2017) Early closure of a temporary ileostomy in patients with rectal cancer: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 265:284–290

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Biondo S, Trenti L, Galvez A et al (2017) Two-stage Turnbull–Cutait pull-through coloanal anastomosis versus coloanal anastomosis with protective loop ileostomy for low rectal cancer. Protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Int J Colorectal Dis 32:1357–1362

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Turnbull RB (1966) Pull-through resection of the rectum, with delayed anastomosis, for cancer or Hirschsprung’s disease. Surgery 59:498–502

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Cutait DE, Cutait RMD, Ioshimoto MMD, Da Silva JHMD, Manzione AMD (1985) Abdominoperineal endoanal pull-through resection: a comparative study between immediate and delayed colorectal anastomosis. Dis Colon Rectum 28:294–299

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Hallet J, Milot H, Drolet S, Desrosiers E, Gregoire RC, Bouchard A (2014) The clinical results of the Turnbull–Cutait delayed coloanal anastomosis: a systematic review. Tech Coloproctol 18:579–590

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Olagne E, Baulieux J, de la Roche E et al (2000) Functional results of delayed coloanal anastomosis after preoperative radiotherapy for lower third rectal cancer. J Am Coll Surg 191:643–649

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Jarry J, Faucheron JL, Moreno W, Bellera CA, Evrard S (2011) Delayed colo-anal anastomosis is an alternative to prophylactic diverting stoma after total mesorectal excision for middle and low rectal carcinomas. Eur J Surg Oncol 37:127–133

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Remzi FH, El Gazzaz G, Kiran RP, Kirat HT, Fazio VW (2009) Outcomes following Turnbull–Cutait abdominoperineal pull-through compared with coloanal anastomosis. Br J Surg 96:424–429

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Bianco F, Belli A, De Franciscis S et al (2016) “Scarless” and no-stoma surgery for low rectal cancer: the laparoscopic pull-through delayed “high” colo-anal anastomosis. Update Surg 68:99–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Xiong Y, Huang P, Ren QG (2016) Transanal pull-through procedure with delayed versus immediate coloanal anastomosis for anus-preserving curative resection of lower rectal cancer: a case-control study. Am Surg 82:533–539

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Jarry J, Faucheron JL (2011) Laparoscopic rectosigmoid resection with transanal colonic pull-through and delayed coloanal anastomosis: a new approach to adult Hirschsprung disease. Dis Colon Rectum 54:1313–1319

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Fixot K, Galifet M, Scherrer ML et al (2014) Abdominoperineal pull-through resection with delayed coloanal anastomosis as treatment option for complex recto-urinary fistulas. Int J Colorectal Dis 29:407–409

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Patsouras D, Yassin NA, Phillips RK (2014) Clinical outcomes of colo-anal pull-through procedure for complex rectal conditions. Colorectal Dis 16:253–258

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Denost Q, Rouanet P, Faucheron JL et al (2017) To drain or not to drain infraperitoneal anastomosis after rectal excision for cancer: the GRECCAR 5 randomized trial. Ann Surg 265:474–480

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Rahbari NN, Weitz J, Hohenberger W 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 147:339–351

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications. A new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–212

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Jorge JM, Wexner SD (1993) Etiology and management of fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 36:77–97

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. McCulloch P, Altman DG, Campbell WB et al (2009) No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations. Lancet 374:1105–1112

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Mattiessen P, Hallböök O, Rutegård J, Simert G, Sjödahl R (2007) Defunctioning stoma reduces symptomatic anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection of the rectum for cancer. Ann Surg 246:207–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Peeters KC, Tollenaar RA, Marijnen CA et al (2005) Risk factors for anastomotic failure after total mesorectal excision of rectal cancer. Br J Surg 92:211–216

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Paun BC, Cassie S, MacLean AR, Dixon E, Buie WD (2010) Postoperative complications following surgery for rectal cancer. Ann Surg 251:807–818

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Bertelsen CA, Andreasen AH, Jørgensen T, On Behalf of the Danish Colorectal Cancer Group et al (2010) Anastomotic leakage after curative anterior resection for rectal cancer: short and long term outcome. Colorectal Dis 12:e76–e81

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Snidjers HS, Van den Broek CBM, Wouters MWJM et al (2013) An increasing use of defunctioning stoma after low anterior resection for rectal cancer. Is it the way to go? Eur J Surg Oncol 39:715–720

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Jayne DG, Guillou PJ, Thorpe H et al (2007) Randomized trial of laparoscopic-assisted resection of colorectal carcinoma: 3-year results of the UK MRC CLASICC Trial Group. J Clin Oncol 25:3061–3068

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Laurent C, Leblanc F, Wütrich P et al (2009) Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer: long-term oncologic results. Ann Surg 250:54–61

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Lujan J, Valero G, Hernandez Q et al (2009) Randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic and open surgery in patients with rectal cancer. Br J Surg 96:982–989

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Colorectal Unit, Department of Surgery, Michallon University Hospital, Grenoble, France

    P.-Y. Sage, B. Trilling, P.-A. Waroquet, D. Voirin, E. Girard & J.-L. Faucheron

  2. University Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France

    B. Trilling & J.-L. Faucheron

  3. Colorectal Unit, Department of Surgery, Grenoble Alpes University Hospital, CS 10217, 38043, Grenoble Cedex, France

    J.-L. Faucheron

Authors
  1. P.-Y. Sage
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. B. Trilling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. P.-A. Waroquet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. D. Voirin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. E. Girard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. J.-L. Faucheron
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J.-L. Faucheron.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The study has been performed in accordance with the ethical standards as laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments.

Informed consent

For this type of study formal consent is not required.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sage, PY., Trilling, B., Waroquet, PA. et al. Laparoscopic delayed coloanal anastomosis without diverting ileostomy for low rectal cancer surgery: 85 consecutive patients from a single institution. Tech Coloproctol 22, 511–518 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-018-1813-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-018-1813-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation