Florian Kühn1, Florian Janisch1, Frank Schwandner1, Michael Gock1, Nicole Wedermann1, Maria Witte1, Ernst Klar1, Leif Schiffmann2,3,4. 1. Department of General, Thoracic, Vascular and Transplantation Surgery, University of Rostock, Schillingallee 35, 18057, Rostock, Germany. 2. Department of General, Thoracic, Vascular and Transplantation Surgery, University of Rostock, Schillingallee 35, 18057, Rostock, Germany. leif@dr-schiffmann.de. 3. Department of General, Visceral and Thoracic Surgery, Helios Klinikum Aue, Gartenstraße 6, 08280, Aue, Germany. leif@dr-schiffmann.de. 4. Department of Surgery, University of Rostock, Schillingallee 35, 18057, Rostock, Germany. leif@dr-schiffmann.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anastomotic leakage after rectal resection represents a severe complication for the patient and requires an early and appropriate management. Endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT) has become the treatment of choice for anastomotic leakage after rectal resection in several institutions in Germany, and commercially available systems are currently distributed in approximately 30 countries worldwide. However, there is no evidence that EVT is superior to any other treatment for anastomotic leakage after rectal resection. METHODS: Twenty-one patients treated with EVT for anastomotic leakage after rectal resection were retrospectively compared to a historical cohort of 41 patients that received conventional treatment. Primary endpoints were death, treatment success and long-term preservation of intestinal continuity. Secondary endpoints were length of hospital stay and duration of treatment. RESULTS: There was no difference in mortality (p = 0.624). The intention-to-treat analysis showed a significantly higher success rate of EVT compared to conventional treatment (95.2% vs. 65.9%, p = 0.011). EVT was associated with preservation of intestinal continuity in a significant higher percentage of patients than patients undergoing conventional treatment (86.7% vs. 37.5%, p = 0.001). Conventional treatment tended to a shorter length of hospital stay (31.1 vs. 42.2 days, p = 0.066) but with no difference in overall duration of treatment. Time until closing of a diverting stoma did not differ between groups (10.2 months in the EVT group vs. 9.4 months in the conventional treatment group, p = 0.721). CONCLUSION: According to this retrospective study, conventional therapy and EVT are both options for the treatment of anastomotic leakage after rectal resection. EVT might be more effective in terms of definite healing and preservation of intestinal continuity.
BACKGROUND: Anastomotic leakage after rectal resection represents a severe complication for the patient and requires an early and appropriate management. Endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT) has become the treatment of choice for anastomotic leakage after rectal resection in several institutions in Germany, and commercially available systems are currently distributed in approximately 30 countries worldwide. However, there is no evidence that EVT is superior to any other treatment for anastomotic leakage after rectal resection. METHODS: Twenty-one patients treated with EVT for anastomotic leakage after rectal resection were retrospectively compared to a historical cohort of 41 patients that received conventional treatment. Primary endpoints were death, treatment success and long-term preservation of intestinal continuity. Secondary endpoints were length of hospital stay and duration of treatment. RESULTS: There was no difference in mortality (p = 0.624). The intention-to-treat analysis showed a significantly higher success rate of EVT compared to conventional treatment (95.2% vs. 65.9%, p = 0.011). EVT was associated with preservation of intestinal continuity in a significant higher percentage of patients than patients undergoing conventional treatment (86.7% vs. 37.5%, p = 0.001). Conventional treatment tended to a shorter length of hospital stay (31.1 vs. 42.2 days, p = 0.066) but with no difference in overall duration of treatment. Time until closing of a diverting stoma did not differ between groups (10.2 months in the EVT group vs. 9.4 months in the conventional treatment group, p = 0.721). CONCLUSION: According to this retrospective study, conventional therapy and EVT are both options for the treatment of anastomotic leakage after rectal resection. EVT might be more effective in terms of definite healing and preservation of intestinal continuity.
Authors: T J Gardenbroek; G D Musters; C J Buskens; C Y Ponsioen; G R A M D'Haens; M G W Dijkgraaf; P J Tanis; W A Bemelman Journal: Colorectal Dis Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 3.788
Authors: A A Khan; J M D Wheeler; C Cunningham; B George; M Kettlewell; N J McC Mortensen Journal: Colorectal Dis Date: 2007-12-07 Impact factor: 3.788
Authors: Jennifer Blumetti; Vivek Chaudhry; Jose R Cintron; John J Park; Slawomir Marecik; Jacqueline L Harrison; Leela M Prasad; Herand Abcarian Journal: World J Surg Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Florian Kühn; Josefine Schardey; Ulrich Wirth; Tobias Schiergens; Alexander Crispin; Nicola Beger; Dorian Andrade; Moritz Drefs; Petra Zimmermann; Maria Burian; Joachim Andrassy; Jens Werner Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2021-11-24 Impact factor: 2.571