AIM: To analyze the time interval ('delay') between the first occurrence of clinical parameters associated with anastomotic leakage after colorectal resection and subsequent relaparotomy. METHODS: In 36 out of 289 consecutive patients with colorectal anastomosis, leakage was confirmed at relaparotomy. The medical records of these patients were retrospectively analysed and type and time of appearance of clinical parameters suggestive of anastomotic leakage were recorded. These parameters included heart rate, body temperature, local or generalized peritoneal reaction, leucocytosis, ileus and delayed gastric emptying. Factors influencing delay of relaparotomy and consequences of delayed recognition and treatment were determined. RESULTS: First documentation of at least one of the predefined parameters for anastomotic leakage was after a median interval of 4 +/- 1.7 d after the operation. The median number of days between first parameter(s) associated with leakage and relaparotomy was 3.5 +/- 5.7 d. The time interval between the first signs of leakage and relaparotomy was significantly longer when a weekend was included (4.2 d vs 2.4 d, P = 0.021) or radiological evaluation proved to be false-negative (8.1 d vs 3.5 d, P = 0.007). No significant association between delay and number of additional relaparotomies, hospital stay or mortality could be demonstrated. CONCLUSION: An intervening weekend and negative diagnostic imaging reports may contribute to a delay in diagnosis and relaparotomy for anastomotic leakage. That delay was more than two days in two-thirds of the patients.
AIM: To analyze the time interval ('delay') between the first occurrence of clinical parameters associated with anastomotic leakage after colorectal resection and subsequent relaparotomy. METHODS: In 36 out of 289 consecutive patients with colorectal anastomosis, leakage was confirmed at relaparotomy. The medical records of these patients were retrospectively analysed and type and time of appearance of clinical parameters suggestive of anastomotic leakage were recorded. These parameters included heart rate, body temperature, local or generalized peritoneal reaction, leucocytosis, ileus and delayed gastric emptying. Factors influencing delay of relaparotomy and consequences of delayed recognition and treatment were determined. RESULTS: First documentation of at least one of the predefined parameters for anastomotic leakage was after a median interval of 4 +/- 1.7 d after the operation. The median number of days between first parameter(s) associated with leakage and relaparotomy was 3.5 +/- 5.7 d. The time interval between the first signs of leakage and relaparotomy was significantly longer when a weekend was included (4.2 d vs 2.4 d, P = 0.021) or radiological evaluation proved to be false-negative (8.1 d vs 3.5 d, P = 0.007). No significant association between delay and number of additional relaparotomies, hospital stay or mortality could be demonstrated. CONCLUSION: An intervening weekend and negative diagnostic imaging reports may contribute to a delay in diagnosis and relaparotomy for anastomotic leakage. That delay was more than two days in two-thirds of the 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
Authors: S A Käser; U Nitsche; M Maak; C W Michalski; C Späth; T C Müller; C A Maurer; K P Janssen; J Kleeff; H Friess; F G Bader Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2014-05-23 Impact factor: 3.445
Authors: Astrid A M Huiberts; Lea M Dijksman; Simone A Boer; Eveline J T Krul; Jan Peringa; Sandra C Donkervoort Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2015-04-25 Impact factor: 2.571