Kevin Talboom1, Nynke G Greijdanus1, Cyriel Y Ponsioen2, Pieter J Tanis1,3, Wilhelmus A Bemelman1,3, Roel Hompes4,5. 1. Department of Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Gastroenterology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Cancer Centre Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. r.hompes@amsterdamumc.nl. 5. Cancer Centre Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. r.hompes@amsterdamumc.nl.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic vacuum-assisted surgical closure (EVASC) is an emerging treatment for AL, and early initiation of treatment seems to be crucial. The objective of this study was to report on the efficacy of EVASC for anastomotic leakage (AL) after rectal cancer resection and determine factors for success. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included all rectal cancer patients treated with EVASC for a leaking primary anastomosis after LAR at a tertiary referral centre (July 2012-April 2020). Early initiation (≤ 21 days) or late initiation of the EVASC protocol was compared. Primary outcomes were healed and functional anastomosis at end of follow-up. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients were included, of whom 38 were referred. Median follow-up was 25 months (IQR 14-38). Early initiation of EVASC (≤ 21 days) resulted in a higher rate of healed anastomosis (87% vs 59%, OR 4.43 [1.25-15.9]) and functional anastomosis (80% vs 56%, OR 3.11 [1.00-9.71]) if compared to late initiation. Median interval from AL diagnosis to initiation of EVASC was significantly shorter in the early group (11 days (IQR 6-15) vs 70 days (IQR 39-322), p < 0.001). A permanent end-colostomy was created in 7% and 28%, respectively (OR 0.18 [0.04-0.93]). In 17 patients with a non-defunctioned anastomosis, and AL diagnosis within 2 weeks, EVASC resulted in 100% healed and functional anastomosis. CONCLUSION: Early initiation of EVASC for anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer resection yields high rates of healed and functional anastomosis. EVASC showed to be progressively more successful with the implementation of highly selective diversion and early diagnosis of the leak.
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic vacuum-assisted surgical closure (EVASC) is an emerging treatment for AL, and early initiation of treatment seems to be crucial. The objective of this study was to report on the efficacy of EVASC for anastomotic leakage (AL) after rectal cancer resection and determine factors for success. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included all rectal cancer patients treated with EVASC for a leaking primary anastomosis after LAR at a tertiary referral centre (July 2012-April 2020). Early initiation (≤ 21 days) or late initiation of the EVASC protocol was compared. Primary outcomes were healed and functional anastomosis at end of follow-up. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients were included, of whom 38 were referred. Median follow-up was 25 months (IQR 14-38). Early initiation of EVASC (≤ 21 days) resulted in a higher rate of healed anastomosis (87% vs 59%, OR 4.43 [1.25-15.9]) and functional anastomosis (80% vs 56%, OR 3.11 [1.00-9.71]) if compared to late initiation. Median interval from AL diagnosis to initiation of EVASC was significantly shorter in the early group (11 days (IQR 6-15) vs 70 days (IQR 39-322), p < 0.001). A permanent end-colostomy was created in 7% and 28%, respectively (OR 0.18 [0.04-0.93]). In 17 patients with a non-defunctioned anastomosis, and AL diagnosis within 2 weeks, EVASC resulted in 100% healed and functional anastomosis. CONCLUSION: Early initiation of EVASC for anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer resection yields high rates of healed and functional anastomosis. EVASC showed to be progressively more successful with the implementation of highly selective diversion and early diagnosis of the leak.
Authors: S Q Ashraf; E M Burns; A Jani; S Altman; J D Young; C Cunningham; O Faiz; N J Mortensen Journal: Colorectal Dis Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 3.788
Authors: Yakup Kulu; Ignazio Tarantio; Rene Warschkow; Sandra Kny; Martin Schneider; Bruno M Schmied; Markus W Büchler; Alexis Ulrich Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2014-10-28 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Grace C Lee; Liliana G Bordeianou; Todd D Francone; Lawrence S Blaszkowsky; Robert N Goldstone; Rocco Ricciardi; Hiroko Kunitake; Motaz Qadan Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2019-12-16 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Daniel Kverneng Hultberg; Johan Svensson; Henrik Jutesten; Jörgen Rutegård; Peter Matthiessen; Marie-Louise Lydrup; Martin Rutegård Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2020-05 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: Wernard A A Borstlap; Emma Westerduin; Tjeerd S Aukema; Willem A Bemelman; Pieter J Tanis Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2017-11 Impact factor: 12.969