A Arezzo1, M Migliore2, P Chiaro2, S Arolfo2, C Filippini2, D Di Cuonzo3, R Cirocchi4, M Morino2. 1. Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin, Corso Dogliotti 14, 10126, Turin, Italy. alberto.arezzo@unito.it. 2. Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin, Corso Dogliotti 14, 10126, Turin, Italy. 3. Cancer Epidemiology Unit, San Giovanni Battista Hospital, CPO Piemonte, University of Turin, Turin, Italy. 4. Department of General Surgery, Terni Hospital, University of Perugia, Terni, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anastomotic leak after rectal cancer surgery is a severe complication associated with poorer oncologic outcome and quality of life. Preoperative assessment of the risk for anastomotic leak is a key component of surgical planning, including the opportunity to create a defunctioning stoma. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to identify and quantify the risk factors for anastomotic leak to minimize risk by either not restoring bowel continuity or protecting the anastomosis with a temporary diverting stoma. METHODS: Potentially relevant studies were identified from the following databases: PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library. This meta-analysis included studies on transabdominal resection for rectal cancer that reported data about anastomotic leak. The risk for anastomotic leak after rectal cancer surgery was investigated. Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative factors were extracted and used to compare anastomotic leak rates. All variables demonstrating a p value < 0.1 in the univariate analysis were entered into a multivariate logistic regression model to determine the risk factors for anastomotic leak. RESULTS: Twenty-six centers provided individual data on 9735 patients. Selected preoperative covariates (time before surgery, age, gender, smoking, previous abdominal surgery, BMI, diabetes, ASA, hemoglobin level, TNM classification stage, anastomotic distance) were used as independent factors in a logistic regression model with anastomotic leak as dependent variable. With a threshold value of the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve corresponding to 0.0791 in the training set, the area under the ROC curve (AUC) was 0.585 (p < 0.0001). Sensitivity and specificity of the model's probability > 0.0791 to identify anastomotic leak were 79.1% and 32.9%, respectively. Accuracy of the threshold value was confirmed in the validation set with 77.8% sensitivity and 35.2% specificity. CONCLUSIONS: We trust that, with further refinement using prospective data, this nomogram based on preoperative risk factors may assist surgeons in decision making. The score is now available online ( http://www.real-score.org ).
BACKGROUND:Anastomotic leak after rectal cancer surgery is a severe complication associated with poorer oncologic outcome and quality of life. Preoperative assessment of the risk for anastomotic leak is a key component of surgical planning, including the opportunity to create a defunctioning stoma. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to identify and quantify the risk factors for anastomotic leak to minimize risk by either not restoring bowel continuity or protecting the anastomosis with a temporary diverting stoma. METHODS: Potentially relevant studies were identified from the following databases: PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library. This meta-analysis included studies on transabdominal resection for rectal cancer that reported data about anastomotic leak. The risk for anastomotic leak after rectal cancer surgery was investigated. Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative factors were extracted and used to compare anastomotic leak rates. All variables demonstrating a p value < 0.1 in the univariate analysis were entered into a multivariate logistic regression model to determine the risk factors for anastomotic leak. RESULTS: Twenty-six centers provided individual data on 9735 patients. Selected preoperative covariates (time before surgery, age, gender, smoking, previous abdominal surgery, BMI, diabetes, ASA, hemoglobin level, TNM classification stage, anastomotic distance) were used as independent factors in a logistic regression model with anastomotic leak as dependent variable. With a threshold value of the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve corresponding to 0.0791 in the training set, the area under the ROC curve (AUC) was 0.585 (p < 0.0001). Sensitivity and specificity of the model's probability > 0.0791 to identify anastomotic leak were 79.1% and 32.9%, respectively. Accuracy of the threshold value was confirmed in the validation set with 77.8% sensitivity and 35.2% specificity. CONCLUSIONS: We trust that, with further refinement using prospective data, this nomogram based on preoperative risk factors may assist surgeons in decision making. The score is now available online ( http://www.real-score.org ).
Authors: C A M Marijnen; E Kapiteijn; C J H van de Velde; H Martijn; W H Steup; T Wiggers; E Klein Kranenbarg; J W H Leer Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-02-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: C Palanivelu; K Sendhilkumar; Kalpesh Jani; P S Rajan; G S Maheshkumar; Roshan Shetty; R Parthasarthi Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2006-06-20 Impact factor: 2.571
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: V Lin; A Tsouchnika; E Allakhverdiiev; A W Rosen; M Gögenur; J S R Clausen; K B Bräuner; J S Walbech; P Rijnbeek; I Drakos; I Gögenur Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2022-05-20 Impact factor: 3.699
Authors: Gian Luca Baiocchi; Gianluca Guercioni; Nereo Vettoretto; Stefano Scabini; Paolo Millo; Andrea Muratore; Marco Clementi; Giuseppe Sica; Paolo Delrio; Graziano Longo; Gabriele Anania; Vittoria Barbieri; Pietro Amodio; Carlo Di Marco; Gianandrea Baldazzi; Gianluca Garulli; Alberto Patriti; Felice Pirozzi; Raffaele De Luca; Stefano Mancini; Corrado Pedrazzani; Matteo Scaramuzzi; Marco Scatizzi; Lucio Taglietti; Michele Motter; Graziano Ceccarelli; Mauro Totis; Andrea Gennai; Diletta Frazzini; Gianluca Di Mauro; Gabriella Teresa Capolupo; Francesco Crafa; Pierluigi Marini; Giacomo Ruffo; Roberto Persiani; Felice Borghi; Nicolò de Manzini; Marco Catarci Journal: BMC Surg Date: 2021-04-10 Impact factor: 2.102