Cloë L Sparreboom1, Julia T van Groningen2,3, Hester F Lingsma4, Michel W J M Wouters2,5, Anand G Menon1,6, Gert-Jan Kleinrensink7, Johannes Jeekel7, Johan F Lange1. 1. Department of Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 2. Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, Leiden, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Surgical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Surgery, Havenziekenhuis, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 7. Department of Neuroscience-Anatomy, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anastomotic leakage remains a major complication after surgery for colorectal carcinoma, but its origin is still unknown. Our hypothesis was that early anastomotic leakage is mostly related to technical failure of the anastomosis, and that late anastomotic leakage is mostly related to healing deficiencies. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess differences in risk factors for early and late anastomotic leakage. DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study. SETTINGS: The Dutch ColoRectal Audit is a nationwide project that collects information on all Dutch patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer. PATIENTS: All patients undergoing surgical resection for colorectal cancer in the Netherlands between 2011 and 2015 were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Late anastomotic leakage was defined as anastomotic leakage leading to reintervention later than 6 days postoperatively. RESULTS: In total, 36,929 patients were included; early anastomotic leakage occurred in 863 (2.3%) patients, and late anastomotic leakage occurred in 674 (1.8%) patients. From a multivariable multinomial logistic regression model, independent predictors of early anastomotic leakage relative to no anastomotic leakage and late anastomotic leakage relative to no anastomotic leakage included male sex (OR, 1.8; p < 0.001 and OR, 1.2; p = 0.013) and rectal cancer (OR, 2.1; p < 0.001 and OR, 1.6; p = 0.046). Additional independent predictors of early anastomotic leakage relative to no anastomotic leakage included BMI (OR, 1.1; p = 0.001), laparoscopy (OR, 1.2; p = 0.019), emergency surgery (OR, 1.8; p < 0.001), and no diverting ileostomy (OR, 0.3; p < 0.001). Independent predictors of late anastomotic leakage relative to no anastomotic leakage were Charlson Comorbidity Index of ≥II (OR, 1.3; p = 0.003), ASA score III to V (OR, 1.2; p = 0.030), preoperative tumor complications (OR, 1.1; p = 0.048), extensive additional resection because of tumor growth (OR, 1.7; p = 0.003), and preoperative radiation (OR, 2.0; p = 0.010). LIMITATIONS: This was an observational cohort study. CONCLUSIONS: Most risk factors for early anastomotic leakage were surgery-related factors, representing surgical difficulty, which might lead to technical failure of the anastomosis. Most risk factors for late anastomotic leakage were patient-related factors, representing the frailty of patients and tissues, which might imply healing deficiencies. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A730.
BACKGROUND: Anastomotic leakage remains a major complication after surgery for colorectal carcinoma, but its origin is still unknown. Our hypothesis was that early anastomotic leakage is mostly related to technical failure of the anastomosis, and that late anastomotic leakage is mostly related to healing deficiencies. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess differences in risk factors for early and late anastomotic leakage. DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study. SETTINGS: The Dutch ColoRectal Audit is a nationwide project that collects information on all Dutch patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer. PATIENTS: All patients undergoing surgical resection for colorectal cancer in the Netherlands between 2011 and 2015 were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Late anastomotic leakage was defined as anastomotic leakage leading to reintervention later than 6 days postoperatively. RESULTS: In total, 36,929 patients were included; early anastomotic leakage occurred in 863 (2.3%) patients, and late anastomotic leakage occurred in 674 (1.8%) patients. From a multivariable multinomial logistic regression model, independent predictors of early anastomotic leakage relative to no anastomotic leakage and late anastomotic leakage relative to no anastomotic leakage included male sex (OR, 1.8; p < 0.001 and OR, 1.2; p = 0.013) and rectal cancer (OR, 2.1; p < 0.001 and OR, 1.6; p = 0.046). Additional independent predictors of early anastomotic leakage relative to no anastomotic leakage included BMI (OR, 1.1; p = 0.001), laparoscopy (OR, 1.2; p = 0.019), emergency surgery (OR, 1.8; p < 0.001), and no diverting ileostomy (OR, 0.3; p < 0.001). Independent predictors of late anastomotic leakage relative to no anastomotic leakage were Charlson Comorbidity Index of ≥II (OR, 1.3; p = 0.003), ASA score III to V (OR, 1.2; p = 0.030), preoperative tumor complications (OR, 1.1; p = 0.048), extensive additional resection because of tumor growth (OR, 1.7; p = 0.003), and preoperative radiation (OR, 2.0; p = 0.010). LIMITATIONS: This was an observational cohort study. CONCLUSIONS: Most risk factors for early anastomotic leakage were surgery-related factors, representing surgical difficulty, which might lead to technical failure of the anastomosis. Most risk factors for late anastomotic leakage were patient-related factors, representing the frailty of patients and tissues, which might imply healing deficiencies. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A730.
Authors: John Tapper; Stefan Arver; Torbjörn Holm; Matteo Bottai; Mikael Machado; Ravi Jasuja; Anna Martling; Christian Buchli Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2019-07-19 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: V Pla-Martí; J Martín-Arévalo; D Moro-Valdezate; S García-Botello; I Mora-Oliver; R Gadea-Mateo; C Cozar-Lozano; A Espí-Macías Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2020-09-10 Impact factor: 3.781
Authors: Marcus Kantowski; Andreas Kunze; Eugen Bellon; Thomas Rösch; Utz Settmacher; Michael Tachezy Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2019-12-02 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Mauro Podda; Patricia Sylla; Gianluca Baiocchi; Michel Adamina; Vanni Agnoletti; Ferdinando Agresta; Luca Ansaloni; Alberto Arezzo; Nicola Avenia; Walter Biffl; Antonio Biondi; Simona Bui; Fabio C Campanile; Paolo Carcoforo; Claudia Commisso; Antonio Crucitti; Nicola De'Angelis; Gian Luigi De'Angelis; Massimo De Filippo; Belinda De Simone; Salomone Di Saverio; Giorgio Ercolani; Gustavo P Fraga; Francesco Gabrielli; Federica Gaiani; Mario Guerrieri; Angelo Guttadauro; Yoram Kluger; Ari K Leppaniemi; Andrea Loffredo; Tiziana Meschi; Ernest E Moore; Monica Ortenzi; Francesco Pata; Dario Parini; Adolfo Pisanu; Gilberto Poggioli; Andrea Polistena; Alessandro Puzziello; Fabio Rondelli; Massimo Sartelli; Neil Smart; Michael E Sugrue; Patricia Tejedor; Marco Vacante; Federico Coccolini; Justin Davies; Fausto Catena Journal: World J Emerg Surg Date: 2021-07-02 Impact factor: 5.469
Authors: Marcello Sanzi; Alberto Aiolfi; Jacopo Nicolò Marin; Abd El Hakim Darawsh; Davide Bona Journal: Diving Hyperb Med Date: 2021-03-31 Impact factor: 0.887
Authors: Marcin Zeman; Marek Czarnecki; Ewa Chmielik; Adam Idasiak; Władysław Skałba; Mirosław Strączyński; Piotr J Paul; Agnieszka Czarniecka Journal: World J Surg Oncol Date: 2021-05-21 Impact factor: 2.754