E Rausa1, M A Zappa2, M E Kelly3, L Turati4, A Russo4, A Aiolfi5, G Bonitta4, L G Sgroi4. 1. Surgical Oncology Unit, Treviglio Hospital, Piazzale Ospedale 1, 24047, Treviglio, Bergamo, Italy. emarausa@yahoo.it. 2. Division of General Surgery, Fatebenefratelli Hospital, Milan, Italy. 3. Department of Colorectal Surgery, St James Hospital, Dublin, Ireland. 4. Surgical Oncology Unit, Treviglio Hospital, Piazzale Ospedale 1, 24047, Treviglio, Bergamo, Italy. 5. Department of Biomedical Science for Health, Division of General Surgery, Istitituto Clinico Sant'Ambrogio, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anastomotic leakage (AL) remains the most challenging complication following colorectal resection. There are several tests that can be used to test anastomotic integrity intraoperatively including air leak testing (ALT) and intraoperative colonoscopy (IOC). Indocyanine green (ICG) can be used to visualise blood supply to the bowel used in the anastomosis. However, there is no consensus internationally regarding routine use and which technique is superior. The aim of this study was to determine which intraoperative anastomotoic leak test (IALT) was most effective in reducing AL. METHODS: A systematic review and network meta-analysis were performed. An electronic systematic search was performed using Pubmed, CENTRAL, and Web of Science, of studies comparing ALT, IOC, and ICG. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (a) patients must have had colorectal surgery with formation of an anastomosis; (b) studies must have compared one or more IALTs; (c) and studies must have clear research methodology. RESULTS: Eleven articles totalling 3844 patients met the inclusion criteria and were included in this meta-analysis. Point estimation showed that the AL rate in the control group (no IALT) was significantly higher when compared to the ICG group (RR 0.44; Crl 0.14-0.87) and higher, but without reaching statistical significance, when compared to ALT (RR 0.53; Crl 0.21-1.30) and IOC (RR 0.49; Crl 0.10-1.80). Indirect comparison showed that the AL rate in the ICG group was lower, when compared to both ALT (RR 0.44; Crl 0.14-0.87) and IOC (RR 0.44; Crl 0.14-0.87). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that intraoperative testing for a good blood supply using ICG may reduce the AL rate following colorectal surgery.
BACKGROUND: Anastomotic leakage (AL) remains the most challenging complication following colorectal resection. There are several tests that can be used to test anastomotic integrity intraoperatively including air leak testing (ALT) and intraoperative colonoscopy (IOC). Indocyanine green (ICG) can be used to visualise blood supply to the bowel used in the anastomosis. However, there is no consensus internationally regarding routine use and which technique is superior. The aim of this study was to determine which intraoperative anastomotoic leak test (IALT) was most effective in reducing AL. METHODS: A systematic review and network meta-analysis were performed. An electronic systematic search was performed using Pubmed, CENTRAL, and Web of Science, of studies comparing ALT, IOC, and ICG. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (a) patients must have had colorectal surgery with formation of an anastomosis; (b) studies must have compared one or more IALTs; (c) and studies must have clear research methodology. RESULTS: Eleven articles totalling 3844 patients met the inclusion criteria and were included in this meta-analysis. Point estimation showed that the AL rate in the control group (no IALT) was significantly higher when compared to the ICG group (RR 0.44; Crl 0.14-0.87) and higher, but without reaching statistical significance, when compared to ALT (RR 0.53; Crl 0.21-1.30) and IOC (RR 0.49; Crl 0.10-1.80). Indirect comparison showed that the AL rate in the ICG group was lower, when compared to both ALT (RR 0.44; Crl 0.14-0.87) and IOC (RR 0.44; Crl 0.14-0.87). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that intraoperative testing for a good blood supply using ICG may reduce the AL rate following colorectal surgery.
Authors: Ian Shrier; Jean-François Boivin; Russell J Steele; Robert W Platt; Andrea Furlan; Ritsuko Kakuma; James Brophy; Michel Rossignol Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2007-08-21 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Nuh N Rahbari; Jürgen Weitz; Werner Hohenberger; Richard J Heald; Brendan Moran; Alexis Ulrich; Torbjörn Holm; W Douglas Wong; Emmanuel Tiret; Yoshihiro Moriya; Søren Laurberg; Marcel den Dulk; Cornelis van de Velde; Markus W Büchler Journal: Surgery Date: 2009-12-11 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: D F Stroup; J A Berlin; S C Morton; I Olkin; G D Williamson; D Rennie; D Moher; B J Becker; T A Sipe; S B Thacker Journal: JAMA Date: 2000-04-19 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Alessandro Liberati; Douglas G Altman; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Cynthia Mulrow; Peter C Gøtzsche; John P A Ioannidis; Mike Clarke; P J Devereaux; Jos Kleijnen; David Moher Journal: BMJ Date: 2009-07-21
Authors: Vicky Ka Ming Li; Steven D Wexner; Nestor Pulido; Hao Wang; Hei Yin Jin; Eric G Weiss; Juan J Nogeuras; Dana R Sands Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2009-03-20 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Maria Michela Chiarello; Valentina Bianchi; Pietro Fransvea; Giuseppe Brisinda Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2022-07-28 Impact factor: 5.374
Authors: Wojciech Polom; Marcin Migaczewski; Jaroslaw Skokowski; Maciej Swierblewski; Tomasz Cwalinski; Leszek Kalinowski; Michal Pedziwiatr; Marcin Matuszewski; Karol Polom Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-01-13 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Francesco Crafa; Augusto Striano; Francesco Esposito; Amalia Rosaria Rita Rossetti; Mario Baiamonte; Valeria Gianfreda; Antonio Longo Journal: Ann Coloproctol Date: 2020-12-04