Standard versus eversion-modified double-staple technique for low colorectal anastomoses after resection of rectal cancer.
Colorectal cancer
Double-stapled colorectal anastomosis
Stapling technique
Journal
Surgery today
ISSN: 1436-2813
Titre abrégé: Surg Today
Pays: Japan
ID NLM: 9204360
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2021
May 2021
Historique:
received:
02
07
2020
accepted:
06
09
2020
pubmed:
1
11
2020
medline:
22
9
2021
entrez:
31
10
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The double-staple technique, performed as either the standard procedure or after eversion of the rectal stump, is a well-established method of performing low colorectal anastomoses following the resection of rectal cancer. Eversion of the tumor-bearing ano-rectal stump was proposed to allow the linear stapler to be fired at a safe distance of clearance from the tumor. We conducted this study to compare the results of the standard versus the eversion-modified double-staple technique. The subjects of this retrospective study were 753 consecutive patients who underwent low stapled colorectal anastomosis after resection of rectal cancer. The patients were divided into two groups according to the method of anastomosis used: Group A comprised 165 patients (22%) treated with the modified eversion technique and group B comprised 588 patients (78%) treated with the standard technique. The primary endpoints of the study were postoperative mortality, surgery-related morbidity, the number of sampled lymph nodes in the mesorectum, and late disease-related survival. Postoperative mortality was 1.2% in group A and 1.7% in group B (p = 0.66). Postoperative morbidity was 12% in group A and 11% in group B (p = 0.75). The mean number of sampled lymph nodes in the mesorectum was 23 (range 17-27) in group A and 24 (range 19-29) in group B (p = 0.06). The 5-year disease-related survival was 73% in group A and 74% in group B (p = 0.75). The standard and eversion-modified double-staple techniques yield comparable results.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33128593
doi: 10.1007/s00595-020-02174-5
pii: 10.1007/s00595-020-02174-5
pmc: PMC8055572
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
785-791Références
Colorectal Dis. 2007 Nov;9(9):801-7
pubmed: 17931170
Br J Surg. 2003 Oct;90(10):1261-6
pubmed: 14515297
Tech Coloproctol. 2015 Jun;19(6):355-60
pubmed: 25840502
Hepatogastroenterology. 1997 Sep-Oct;44(17):1331-3
pubmed: 9356849
J Am Coll Surg. 2009 Jul;209(1):114-8
pubmed: 19651071
J Am Coll Surg. 2005 Jun;200(6):876-82; discussion 882-4
pubmed: 15922198
Ann Surg. 1999 Oct;230(4):544-52; discussion 552-4
pubmed: 10522724
Br J Surg. 1994 Aug;81(8):1224-6
pubmed: 7953369
Ann Surg. 2012 Mar;255(3):504-10
pubmed: 22281734
Dis Colon Rectum. 2008 Jun;51(6):902-8
pubmed: 18408971
Surg Endosc. 2005 Jun;19(6):757-66
pubmed: 15868256
Ann Ital Chir. 2019;90:78-82
pubmed: 30862771
Br J Surg. 2005 Feb;92(2):211-6
pubmed: 15584062
J Am Coll Surg. 1997 Aug;185(2):105-13
pubmed: 9249076
Br J Surg. 2009 Sep;96(9):1066-75
pubmed: 19672927
Surgery. 1980 Nov;88(5):710-4
pubmed: 7434211
Ann Vasc Surg. 2007 Mar;21(2):216-8
pubmed: 17349366
Br J Cancer. 1977 Jan;35(1):1-39
pubmed: 831755
Br J Surg. 2001 Mar;88(3):400-4
pubmed: 11260107
Ann Surg. 1992 Oct;216(4):432-6; discussion 436-7
pubmed: 1417192
Br J Surg. 2005 Sep;92(9):1137-42
pubmed: 15997447
Am J Surg. 2000 Feb;179(2):92-6
pubmed: 10773140
Dis Colon Rectum. 1990 Apr;33(4):351-2
pubmed: 2323288
Int J Colorectal Dis. 2009 Jun;24(6):711-23
pubmed: 19221766
Br J Surg. 1998 Mar;85(3):355-8
pubmed: 9529492
Acta Chir Belg. 2014 Sep-Oct;114(5):338-43
pubmed: 26021539