Comparison Between Endoscopic Vacuum Therapy and Conventional Treatment for Leakage After Rectal Resection.
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:
04 2020
04 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
23
1
2020
medline:
29
12
2020
entrez:
23
1
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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). 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.
Sections du résumé
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31965274
doi: 10.1007/s00268-019-05349-5
pii: 10.1007/s00268-019-05349-5
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1277-1282Références
BMC Surg. 2013 Sep 30;13:43
pubmed: 24073705
Ann Plast Surg. 1997 Jun;38(6):563-76; discussion 577
pubmed: 9188971
Surgery. 2009 Feb;145(2):182-8
pubmed: 19167973
J Gastrointest Surg. 2016 Feb;20(2):328-34
pubmed: 26597270
Int J Colorectal Dis. 2006 Oct;21(7):657-60
pubmed: 16447032
Surg Endosc. 2008 Aug;22(8):1818-25
pubmed: 18095024
Colorectal Dis. 2008 Jul;10(6):587-92
pubmed: 18070185
Colorectal Dis. 2015 May;17(5):426-32
pubmed: 25512241
World J Surg. 2014 Apr;38(4):985-91
pubmed: 24305917