Literature DB >> 17361396

Selective treatment of rectal cancer with single-stage coloanal or ultralow colorectal anastomosis does not adversely affect morbidity and mortality.

Allen P Kong1, Justin Kim, Alicia Holt, Viken Konyalian, Richard Huynh, Sejal M Udani, Michael J Stamos, Ravin R Kumar.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The surgical treatment of low rectal cancer commonly includes low pelvic anastomoses with coloanal or ultralow colorectal anastomoses. Anastomotic leak rates in low pelvic anastomoses range from 4 to 26%. Many surgeons opt to routinely create a diverting ostomy to reduce the extent of morbidity should an anastomotic leak occur. The intent of our study was to determine if our policy of selected diversion is safe.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective chart review of 66 rectal cancer patients who underwent proctectomy and low pelvic anastomoses -- less than 6 cm from anal verge, with or without a diverting ostomy -- was undertaken. Temporary diverting stomas were utilized at the discretion of the attending surgeon primarily based on subjective criteria. The main outcome was postoperative complications. RESULTS/
FINDINGS: Forty-nine patients (78% preoperatively irradiated) were treated with a one-stage operation, whereas 17 (53% preoperatively irradiated) underwent reconstruction with proximal diversion. The mean anastomotic height for patients with a single stage procedure was 3.8 cm above the anal verge versus 2.6 for patients with a two-stage procedure (p = 0.076). Complication rates were lower in patients who did not undergo diversion (29% vs 47%, p = 16). With regard to anastomotic-associated complications for single stage versus two stage, complication rates were 8% versus 18%, respectively (p = 0.27). INTERPRETATION/
CONCLUSION: Low pelvic anastomoses in rectal cancer patients can be safely performed as a single-stage procedure, reserving the use of diversion for select cases.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17361396     DOI: 10.1007/s00384-007-0274-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis        ISSN: 0179-1958            Impact factor:   2.796


  22 in total

Review 1.  Management of rectal cancer.

Authors:  James S Wu; Victor W Fazio
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 3.452

2.  Risk of peritonitis and fatal septicaemia and the need to defunction the low anastomosis.

Authors:  N D Karanjia; A P Corder; P J Holdsworth; R J Heald
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  1991-02       Impact factor: 6.939

3.  Randomized comparison of straight and colonic J pouch anastomosis after low anterior resection.

Authors:  O Hallböök; L Påhlman; M Krog; S D Wexner; R Sjödahl
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  1996-07       Impact factor: 12.969

4.  Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision.

Authors:  W I Law; K W Chu; J W Ho; C W Chan
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 2.565

5.  Safety of double-stapled anastomosis in low anterior resection.

Authors:  H P Redmond; O M Austin; A P Clery; J M Deasy
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  1993-07       Impact factor: 6.939

6.  Impact of neoadjuvant therapy on postoperative complications in patients undergoing resection for rectal adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Immanuel I Turner; Gregory B Russell; A William Blackstock; Edward A Levine
Journal:  Am Surg       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 0.688

7.  Factors associated with the occurrence of leaks in stapled rectal anastomoses: a review of 1,014 patients.

Authors:  A Vignali; V W Fazio; I C Lavery; J W Milsom; J M Church; T L Hull; S A Strong; J R Oakley
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  1997-08       Impact factor: 6.113

8.  Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after resection of rectal cancer.

Authors:  E Rullier; C Laurent; J L Garrelon; P Michel; J Saric; M Parneix
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 6.939

9.  Defunctioning stoma in low anterior resection with colonic pouch for rectal cancer: a comparison between two hospitals with a different policy.

Authors:  Mikael Machado; Olof Hallböök; Sven Goldman; Per-Olof Nyström; Johannes Järhult; Rune Sjödahl
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 4.585

10.  Value of a protective stoma in low anterior resections for rectal cancer.

Authors:  Frank Marusch; Andreas Koch; Uwe Schmidt; Sven Geibetaler; Henning Dralle; Hans-Detlev Saeger; Stefanie Wolff; Gerd Nestler; Matthias Pross; Ingo Gastinger; Hans Lippert
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 4.585

View more
  5 in total

1.  Laparoscopy following peritoneal entry during transanal endoscopic microsurgery may increase the safety and maximize the benefits of the transanal excision.

Authors:  N Issa; Y Fenig; M Yasin; H Schmilovitz-Weiss; W Khoury; E Powsner
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2016-02-23       Impact factor: 3.781

2.  A sustaining rod increases necrosis of loop ileostomies: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Joel Zindel; Chantal Gygax; Peter Studer; Melanie Kauper; Daniel Candinas; Vanessa Banz; Lukas E Brügger
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2017-04-18       Impact factor: 2.571

3.  Reoperation for anastomotic failure.

Authors:  Zuri A Murrell; Michael J Stamos
Journal:  Clin Colon Rectal Surg       Date:  2006-11

4.  Low or Ultralow Anterior Resection of Rectal Cancer Without Diverting Stoma: Experience with 28 Patients.

Authors:  E Soltani; A Jangjoo; E Saremi
Journal:  Indian J Surg       Date:  2013-02-07       Impact factor: 0.656

Review 5.  Surgical treatment for rectal cancer: an international perspective on what the medical gastroenterologist needs to know.

Authors:  Rolv-Ole Lindsetmo; Yong-Geul Joh; Conor-P Delaney
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2008-06-07       Impact factor: 5.742

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.