Literature DB >> 25692355

Anastomotic Leakage After Low Anterior Resection for Rectal Cancer Is Different Between Minimally Invasive Surgery and Open Surgery.

Chang Woo Kim1, Se Jin Baek, Hyuk Hur, Byung Soh Min, Seung Hyuk Baik, Nam Kyu Kim.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To review and compare clinical manifestations of and risk factors for anastomotic leakage (AL) after low anterior resection for rectal cancer between minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open surgery (OS).
BACKGROUND: MIS for rectal cancer has become popular, and its clinical course is different from OS. Many studies have reported on the risk factors and oncologic influence of AL. However, few have directly compared clinical manifestations and risk factors for AL between MIS and OS.
METHODS: From January 2004 to December 2012, a total of 1704 consecutive patients who underwent elective low anterior resection with colorectal anastomosis for rectal cancer were eligible. The variables associated with short-term outcomes and risk factors were analyzed.
RESULTS: The overall AL incidence was 6.4%. In the MIS-AL group, the time to diagnosis of AL and the time to second operation were shorter. A majority of the patients (77.8%) in the MIS-AL group underwent second MIS operation, whereas none in the OS-AL group. The hospital stays after second MIS were shorter than those after second open operation. Multivariate analyses revealed that male sex, smoking and alcohol intake history, previous abdominal surgery, longer operation times, low-lying tumor, and using 2 or more staplers for distal rectal resection were independent risk factors in the MIS-AL group, whereas smoking and alcohol intake history, operation times, and blood loss were significant in the OS-AL group.
CONCLUSIONS: The clinical manifestations of and risk factors for AL were different between MIS and OS. AL after MIS may be more influenced by factors related to technical difficulties. Close attention should be given to patients undergoing surgery with risk factors for AL.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 25692355     DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001157

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Surg        ISSN: 0003-4932            Impact factor:   12.969


  24 in total

1.  Intraoperative colonoscopy for the assessment and prevention of anastomotic leakage in low anterior resection for rectal cancer.

Authors:  Seung Yoon Yang; Jeonghee Han; Yoon Dae Han; Min Soo Cho; Hyuk Hur; Kang Young Lee; Nam Kyu Kim; Byung Soh Min
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2017-01-31       Impact factor: 2.571

2.  Influence of pelvic volume on surgical outcome after low anterior resection for rectal cancer.

Authors:  G Zur Hausen; J Gröne; D Kaufmann; S M Niehues; K Aschenbrenner; A Stroux; B Hamm; M E Kreis; Johannes C Lauscher
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2017-03-18       Impact factor: 2.571

3.  Transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer with indocyanine green fluorescence angiography.

Authors:  I Mizrahi; F B de Lacy; M Abu-Gazala; L M Fernandez; A Otero; D R Sands; A M Lacy; S D Wexner
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2018-11-14       Impact factor: 3.781

4.  Who needs diverting ileostomy following laparoscopic low anterior resection in rectal cancer patients? Analysis of 417 patients in a single institute.

Authors:  Hiroki Shimizu; Shigeki Yamaguchi; Toshimasa Ishii; Hiroka Kondo; Kiyoka Hara; Kenichi Takemoto; Shintaro Ishikawa; Takuhisa Okada; Asami Suzuki; Isamu Koyama
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2019-05-20       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 5.  Preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative risk factors for anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic low anterior resection with double stapling technique anastomosis.

Authors:  Kenji Kawada; Yoshiharu Sakai
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-07-07       Impact factor: 5.742

6.  Late anastomotic leakage after anal sphincter saving surgery for rectal cancer: is it different from early anastomotic leakage?

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

7.  An innovative and convenient technique to reduce anastomotic leakage after double stapling anastomosis: laparoscopic demucositized suture the overlapping point of the "dog ear" area.

Authors:  Xiaojiang Yi; Weilin Liao; Xiaochuang Feng; Hongming Li; Zhaoyu Chen; Jiahao Wang; Xinquan Lu; Jin Wan; Jiaxin Lin; Xiaoyan Hong; Dechang Diao
Journal:  Updates Surg       Date:  2022-05-20

8.  Correlation between Colon Perfusion and Postoperative Fecal Output through a Transanal Drainage Tube during Laparoscopic Low Anterior Resection.

Authors:  Kenji Kawada; Toshiaki Wada; Takehito Yamamoto; Yoshiro Itatani; Koya Hida; Kazutaka Obama
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-05-08       Impact factor: 6.575

9.  Magnetic resonance-based pelvimetry and tumor volumetry can predict surgical difficulty and oncologic outcome in locally advanced mid-low rectal cancer.

Authors:  Gulsen Atasoy; Naciye Cigdem Arslan; Funda Dinc Elibol; Ozgul Sagol; Funda Obuz; Selman Sokmen
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2018-06-30       Impact factor: 2.549

10.  Short-term outcomes of robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic-assisted surgery for rectal cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis.

Authors:  Toshinori Sueda; Mitsuyoshi Tei; Kentaro Nishida; Yukihiro Yoshikawa; Tae Matsumura; Chikato Koga; Masaki Wakasugi; Hiromichi Miyagaki; Ryohei Kawabata; Masanori Tsujie; Junichi Hasegawa
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2021-04-22
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.