Delayed Colo-anal Anastomosis for Rectal Cancer: Pelvic Morbidity, Functional Results and Oncological Outcomes: A Systematic Review.
Journal
World journal of surgery
ISSN: 1432-2323
Titre abrégé: World J Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7704052
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2019
May 2019
Historique:
pubmed:
29
1
2019
medline:
30
6
2019
entrez:
29
1
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Delayed colo-anal anastomosis (DCAA) has received renewed interest thanks to its reduction in anastomotic leakage rate without the use of stoma to protect a low rectal anastomosis. The aim of this review was to summarize the available literature on DCAA following rectal cancer resection and to report clinical, oncological and functional results. A comprehensive literature review was conducted including MEDLINE/Pubmed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, clinicaltrials.gov and the Cochrane database of systematic reviews through July 2018. The review was conducted according to MOOSE guidelines. Quality was appraised with the methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS) tool. Eight observational studies (409 patients) were included. Average MINORS score was 9.6/14 in seven non-comparative studies and 17/22 in one comparative study. Six studies reported no anastomotic leak. Pelvic sepsis/abscess ranged from 0 to 25%. Mortality rate was <3% in seven studies and 12.5% in one. Poor fecal continence was reported in <30% of patients. Need for permanent stoma was ≤2% in six studies. A five-year survival rate ranged from 63.8 to 81% (four studies). Loco-regional recurrence rate ranged from 4.8 to 14.3% at 3 years (four studies) and from 6 to 38.8% at 5 years (three studies). DCAA offers an alternative to primary straight colo-anal anastomosis for low rectal cancer. The benefits include reduced risk of anastomotic leakage and pelvic sepsis, and no need for protective ileostomy, with good functional and oncological outcomes. Results of ongoing randomized controlled trials comparing DCAA with straight colo-anal anastomosis and protective stoma are awaited to draw definitive conclusions.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Delayed colo-anal anastomosis (DCAA) has received renewed interest thanks to its reduction in anastomotic leakage rate without the use of stoma to protect a low rectal anastomosis. The aim of this review was to summarize the available literature on DCAA following rectal cancer resection and to report clinical, oncological and functional results.
METHODS
METHODS
A comprehensive literature review was conducted including MEDLINE/Pubmed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, clinicaltrials.gov and the Cochrane database of systematic reviews through July 2018. The review was conducted according to MOOSE guidelines. Quality was appraised with the methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS) tool.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Eight observational studies (409 patients) were included. Average MINORS score was 9.6/14 in seven non-comparative studies and 17/22 in one comparative study. Six studies reported no anastomotic leak. Pelvic sepsis/abscess ranged from 0 to 25%. Mortality rate was <3% in seven studies and 12.5% in one. Poor fecal continence was reported in <30% of patients. Need for permanent stoma was ≤2% in six studies. A five-year survival rate ranged from 63.8 to 81% (four studies). Loco-regional recurrence rate ranged from 4.8 to 14.3% at 3 years (four studies) and from 6 to 38.8% at 5 years (three studies).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
DCAA offers an alternative to primary straight colo-anal anastomosis for low rectal cancer. The benefits include reduced risk of anastomotic leakage and pelvic sepsis, and no need for protective ileostomy, with good functional and oncological outcomes. Results of ongoing randomized controlled trials comparing DCAA with straight colo-anal anastomosis and protective stoma are awaited to draw definitive conclusions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30690655
doi: 10.1007/s00268-019-04918-y
pii: 10.1007/s00268-019-04918-y
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1360-1369Références
JAMA. 2000 Apr 19;283(15):2008-12
pubmed: 10789670
J Am Coll Surg. 2000 Dec;191(6):643-9
pubmed: 11129813
World J Surg. 2001 Jul;25(7):876-81
pubmed: 11572027
ANZ J Surg. 2003 Sep;73(9):712-6
pubmed: 12956787
Cleve Clin Q. 1961 Apr;28:109-15
pubmed: 13778709
Dis Colon Rectum. 1961 Sep-Oct;4:335-42
pubmed: 13882795
Br J Surg. 2003 Oct;90(10):1261-6
pubmed: 14515297
J Gastrointest Surg. 2007 Jan;11(1):8-15
pubmed: 17390180
Ann Surg. 2007 Aug;246(2):207-14
pubmed: 17667498
Colorectal Dis. 2007 Nov;9(9):834-8
pubmed: 17672873
Ann Surg. 2008 Jul;248(1):52-60
pubmed: 18580207
Br J Surg. 2009 Apr;96(4):424-9
pubmed: 19283735
J Chir (Paris). 2009 Oct;146(5):458-63
pubmed: 19833335
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2011 Feb;37(2):127-33
pubmed: 21186091
Lancet Oncol. 2012 Sep;13(9):e403-8
pubmed: 22935240
J Surg Res. 2012 Dec;178(2):708-14
pubmed: 22940030
Colorectal Dis. 2013 Apr;15(4):458-62
pubmed: 22974343
Int J Colorectal Dis. 2014 Mar;29(3):407-9
pubmed: 24162720
Colorectal Dis. 2014 Apr;16(4):253-8
pubmed: 24344638
Tech Coloproctol. 2014 Jun;18(6):579-90
pubmed: 24615720
Int J Colorectal Dis. 2015 Jun;30(6):853-5
pubmed: 25370156
Can J Surg. 2014 Dec;57(6):405-11
pubmed: 25421083
Tech Coloproctol. 2015 Apr;19(4):259-61
pubmed: 25680789
Br J Surg. 2015 Apr;102(5):462-79
pubmed: 25703524
Surg Endosc. 2015 Dec;29(12):3608-17
pubmed: 25743996
Colorectal Dis. 2015 Dec;17(12):1062-70
pubmed: 26096142
Updates Surg. 2016 Mar;68(1):99-104
pubmed: 27040273
Am Surg. 2016 Jun;82(6):533-9
pubmed: 27305886
CA Cancer J Clin. 2017 May 6;67(3):177-193
pubmed: 28248415
Colorectal Dis. 2017 Aug;19(8):713-722
pubmed: 28612460
Dis Colon Rectum. 2018 Feb;61(2):156-161
pubmed: 29337769
J Visc Surg. 2018 Feb;155(1):41-49
pubmed: 29477477
Tech Coloproctol. 2018 Jul;22(7):511-518
pubmed: 30027493
Br J Surg. 1978 Oct;65(10):695-8
pubmed: 709078
Dis Colon Rectum. 1996 Sep;39(9):986-91
pubmed: 8797646
Dis Colon Rectum. 1998 Jun;41(6):740-6
pubmed: 9645742