BACKGROUND: Surgical options after anterior resection for rectal cancer include a primary anastomosis, anastomosis with a defunctioning stoma, and an end colostomy. This study describes short-term and 1-year outcomes of these different surgical strategies. METHODS: Patients undergoing surgical resection for primary mid and high rectal cancer were retrospectively studied in seven Dutch hospitals with 1-year follow-up. Short-term endpoints were postoperative complications, re-interventions, prolonged hospital stay, and mortality. One-year endpoints were unplanned readmissions and re-interventions, presence of stoma, and mortality. RESULTS: Nineteen percent of 388 included patients received a primary anastomosis, 55% an anastomosis with defunctioning stoma, and 27% an end colostomy. Short-term anastomotic leakage was 10% in patients with a primary anastomosis vs. 7% with a defunctioning stoma (P = 0.46). An end colostomy was associated with less severe re-interventions. One-year outcomes showed low morbidity and mortality rates in patients with an anastomosis. Patients with a defunctioning stoma had high (18%) readmissions and re-intervention (12%) rates, mostly due to anastomotic leakage. An end colostomy was associated with unplanned re-interventions due to stoma/abscess problems. During follow-up, there was a 30% increase in patients with an end colostomy. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed a high 1-year morbidity rate after anterior resection for rectal cancer. A defunctioning stoma was associated with a high risk for late complications including anastomotic leakage. An end colostomy is a safe alternative to prevent anastomotic leakage, but stomal problems cannot be ignored. Selecting low-risk patients for an anastomosis may lead to favorable short- and 1-year outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Surgical options after anterior resection for rectal cancer include a primary anastomosis, anastomosis with a defunctioning stoma, and an end colostomy. This study describes short-term and 1-year outcomes of these different surgical strategies. METHODS:Patients undergoing surgical resection for primary mid and high rectal cancer were retrospectively studied in seven Dutch hospitals with 1-year follow-up. Short-term endpoints were postoperative complications, re-interventions, prolonged hospital stay, and mortality. One-year endpoints were unplanned readmissions and re-interventions, presence of stoma, and mortality. RESULTS: Nineteen percent of 388 included patients received a primary anastomosis, 55% an anastomosis with defunctioning stoma, and 27% an end colostomy. Short-term anastomotic leakage was 10% in patients with a primary anastomosis vs. 7% with a defunctioning stoma (P = 0.46). An end colostomy was associated with less severe re-interventions. One-year outcomes showed low morbidity and mortality rates in patients with an anastomosis. Patients with a defunctioning stoma had high (18%) readmissions and re-intervention (12%) rates, mostly due to anastomotic leakage. An end colostomy was associated with unplanned re-interventions due to stoma/abscess problems. During follow-up, there was a 30% increase in patients with an end colostomy. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed a high 1-year morbidity rate after anterior resection for rectal cancer. A defunctioning stoma was associated with a high risk for late complications including anastomotic leakage. An end colostomy is a safe alternative to prevent anastomotic leakage, but stomal problems cannot be ignored. Selecting low-risk patients for an anastomosis may lead to favorable short- and 1-year outcomes.
Authors: Jan Willem T Dekker; Gerrit Jan Liefers; Johan C A de Mol van Otterloo; Hein Putter; Rob A E M Tollenaar Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2010-12-01 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: K C M J Peeters; R A E M Tollenaar; C A M Marijnen; E Klein Kranenbarg; W H Steup; T Wiggers; H J Rutten; C J H van de Velde Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: B Lefebure; J J Tuech; V Bridoux; B Costaglioli; M Scotte; P Teniere; F Michot Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2007-09-02 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: M M Lange; M den Dulk; E R Bossema; C P Maas; K C M J Peeters; H J Rutten; E Klein Kranenbarg; C A M Marijnen; C J H van de Velde Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: M den Dulk; C A M Marijnen; L Collette; H Putter; L Påhlman; J Folkesson; J-F Bosset; C Rödel; K Bujko; C J H van de Velde Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: Ulrich Wirth; Susanne Rogers; Kristina Haubensak; Stefan Schopf; Thomas von Ahnen; Hans Martin Schardey Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2017-11-08 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Seung Yoon Yang; Yoon Dae Han; Min Soo Cho; Hyuk Hur; Byung Soh Min; Kang Young Lee; Nam Kyu Kim Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2020-05-05 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Lisa J Herrinton; Andrea Altschuler; Carmit K McMullen; Joanna E Bulkley; Mark C Hornbrook; Virginia Sun; Christopher S Wendel; Marcia Grant; Carol M Baldwin; Wendy Demark-Wahnefried; Larissa K F Temple; Robert S Krouse Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2016-03-21 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Heleen S Snijders; Nicoline J van Leersum; Daan Henneman; Alexander C de Vries; Rob A E M Tollenaar; Anne M Stiggelbout; Michel W J M Wouters; Jan Willem T Dekker Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2015-02-18 Impact factor: 5.344