Surgical outcomes of Turnbull-Cutait delayed coloanal anastomosis with pull-through versus immediate coloanal anastomosis with diverting stoma after total mesorectal excision for low rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Anastomotic leak
Delayed coloanal anastomosis
Diverting stoma
Pull-through
Rectal cancer
Journal
Techniques in coloproctology
ISSN: 1128-045X
Titre abrégé: Tech Coloproctol
Pays: Italy
ID NLM: 9613614
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 2022
08 2022
Historique:
received:
15
06
2021
accepted:
16
02
2022
pubmed:
29
3
2022
medline:
16
7
2022
entrez:
28
3
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Theoretical advantages of Turnbull-Cutait pull-through delayed coloanal anastomosis (DCAA) are a reduced risk of anastomotic leak and therefore avoidance of stoma. Gradually abandoned in favor of immediate coloanal anastomosis (ICAA) with diverting stoma, DCAA has regained popularity in recent years in reconstructive surgery for low RC, especially when combined with minimally invasive surgery (MIS). The aim of this study was to perform the first meta-analysis, exploring the safety and outcomes of DCAA compared to ICAA with protective stoma. A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL and Google Scholar databases was performed for studies published from January 2000 until December 2020. The systematic review and meta-analysis were performed according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Review on Interventions recommendations and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Out of 2626 studies screened, 9 were included in the systematic review and 4 studies in the meta-analysis. Outcomes included were postoperative complications, pelvic sepsis and risk of definitive stoma. Considering postoperative complications classified as Clavien-Dindo III, no significant difference existed in the rate of postoperative morbidity between DCAA and ICAA (13% versus 21%; OR 1.17; 95% CI 0.38-3.62; p = 0.78; I According to the limited current evidence, DCAA is associated with a significant decrease in pelvic sepsis. Further prospective trials focusing on oncologic and functional outcomes are needed.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Theoretical advantages of Turnbull-Cutait pull-through delayed coloanal anastomosis (DCAA) are a reduced risk of anastomotic leak and therefore avoidance of stoma. Gradually abandoned in favor of immediate coloanal anastomosis (ICAA) with diverting stoma, DCAA has regained popularity in recent years in reconstructive surgery for low RC, especially when combined with minimally invasive surgery (MIS). The aim of this study was to perform the first meta-analysis, exploring the safety and outcomes of DCAA compared to ICAA with protective stoma.
METHODS
A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL and Google Scholar databases was performed for studies published from January 2000 until December 2020. The systematic review and meta-analysis were performed according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Review on Interventions recommendations and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines.
RESULTS
Out of 2626 studies screened, 9 were included in the systematic review and 4 studies in the meta-analysis. Outcomes included were postoperative complications, pelvic sepsis and risk of definitive stoma. Considering postoperative complications classified as Clavien-Dindo III, no significant difference existed in the rate of postoperative morbidity between DCAA and ICAA (13% versus 21%; OR 1.17; 95% CI 0.38-3.62; p = 0.78; I
CONCLUSIONS
According to the limited current evidence, DCAA is associated with a significant decrease in pelvic sepsis. Further prospective trials focusing on oncologic and functional outcomes are needed.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35344150
doi: 10.1007/s10151-022-02601-4
pii: 10.1007/s10151-022-02601-4
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Review
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
603-613Informations de copyright
© 2022. Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
Références
Rullier E, Denost Q, Vendrely V, Rullier A, Laurent C (2013) Low rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. https://doi.org/10.1097/DCR.0b013e31827c4a8c
doi: 10.1097/DCR.0b013e31827c4a8c
pubmed: 23575394
Eriksen MT, Wibe A, Norstein J, Haffner J, Wiig JN (2005) Anastomotic leakage following routine mesorectal excision for rectal cancer in a national cohort of patients. Colorectal Dis. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-1318.2004.00700.x
doi: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2004.00700.x
pubmed: 15606585
Bell SW et al (2003) Anastomotic leakage after curative anterior resection results in a higher prevalence of local recurrence. Br J Surg. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.4219
doi: 10.1002/bjs.4219
pubmed: 14515297
Hanna MH, Vinci A, Pigazzi A (2015) Diverting ileostomy in colorectal surgery: when is it necessary? Langenbeck’s Arch Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-015-1275-1
doi: 10.1007/s00423-015-1275-1
Matthiessen P, Hallböök O, Rutegård J, Simert G, Sjödahl R (2007) Defunctioning stoma reduces symptomatic anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection of the rectum for cancer. Ann Surg. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e3180603024
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3180603024
pubmed: 17667498
pmcid: 1933561
Pisarska M et al (2018) Defunctioning ileostomy reduces leakage rate in rectal cancer surgery—systematic review and meta-analysis. Oncotarget. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.25015
doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.25015
pubmed: 29755692
pmcid: 5945534
Garg PK, Goel A, Sharma S, Chishi N, Gaur MK (2019) Protective diversion stoma in low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Visc Med. https://doi.org/10.1159/000497168
doi: 10.1159/000497168
pubmed: 31367612
pmcid: 6616072
Gessler B, Haglind E, Angenete E (2012) Loop ileostomies in colorectal cancer patients–morbidity and risk factors for nonreversal. J Surg Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2012.08.018
doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2012.08.018
pubmed: 22940030
Sharma A, Deeb A-P, Rickles AS, Iannuzzi JC, Monson JRT, Fleming FJ (2013) Closure of defunctioning loop ileostomy is associated with considerable morbidity. Colorectal Dis. https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.12029
doi: 10.1111/codi.12029
pubmed: 23398663
Danielsen AK et al (2017) Early closure of a temporary ileostomy in patients with rectal cancer. Ann Surg. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000001829
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001829
pubmed: 27322187
Man VCM, Choi HK, Law WL, Foo DCC (2016) Morbidities after closure of ileostomy: analysis of risk factors. Int J Colorectal Dis. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-015-2327-2
doi: 10.1007/s00384-015-2327-2
pubmed: 26245947
Munakata S et al (2017) “Defunctioning loop ileostomy with restorative proctocolectomy for rectal cancer: friend or foe?” J Anus Rectum Colon. https://doi.org/10.23922/jarc.2017-023
doi: 10.23922/jarc.2017-023
pubmed: 31583314
Murken D, Bleier J (2019) Ostomy-related complications. Clin Colon Rectal Surg. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1676995
doi: 10.1055/s-0038-1676995
pubmed: 31061647
pmcid: 6494607
Nugent KP, Daniels P, Stewart B, Patankar R, Johnson CD (1999) Quality of life in stoma patients. Dis Colon Rectum. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02236209
doi: 10.1007/BF02236209
pubmed: 10613475
Ayaz-Alkaya S (2019) Overview of psychosocial problems in individuals with stoma: a review of literature. Int Wound J. https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.13018
doi: 10.1111/iwj.13018
pubmed: 30392194
Turnbull RB, Cuthbertson A (1961) Abdominorectal pull-through resection for cancer and for hirschsprung’s disease: delayed posterior colorectal anastomosis. Clevel Clin J Med. https://doi.org/10.3949/ccjm.28.2.109
doi: 10.3949/ccjm.28.2.109
Cutait DE, Figliolini FJ (1961) A new method of colorectal anastomosis in abdominoperineal resection. Dis Colon Rectum. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02627230
doi: 10.1007/BF02627230
pubmed: 13892805
Knight CD, Griffen FD (1980) An improved technique for low anterior resection of the rectum using the EEA stapler. Surgery 88(5):710–714
pubmed: 7434211
Parks AG (1972) Transanal technique in low rectal anasto. Proc R Soc Med 65(11):975–976
pubmed: 4565861
pmcid: 1644685
Remzi FH, el Gazzaz G, Kiran RP, Kirat HT, Fazio VW (2009) Outcomes following Turnbull-Cutait abdominoperineal pull-through compared with coloanal anastomosis. Br J Surg. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.6458
doi: 10.1002/bjs.6458
pubmed: 19358179
Hallet J et al (2014) Anastomotic salvage after rectal cancer resection using the Turnbull-Cutait delayed anastomosis. Can J Surg. https://doi.org/10.1503/cjs.001014
doi: 10.1503/cjs.001014
pubmed: 25421083
pmcid: 4245271
Patsouras D, Yassin NA, Phillips RKS (2014) Clinical outcomes of colo-anal pull-through procedure for complex rectal conditions. Colorectal Dis. https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.12532
doi: 10.1111/codi.12532
pubmed: 25160680
Fixot K, Galifet M, Scherrer M-L, Germain A, Bresler L (2014) Abdominoperineal pull-through resection with delayed coloanal anastomosis as treatment option for complex recto-urinary fistulas. Int J Colorectal Dis. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-013-1787-5
doi: 10.1007/s00384-013-1787-5
pubmed: 24162720
Bianco F, Belli A, de Franciscis S, Falato A, Romano GM (2016) ‘Scarless’ and no-stoma surgery for low rectal cancer: the laparoscopic pull-through delayed ‘high’ colo-anal anastomosis. Updates Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-016-0358-z
doi: 10.1007/s13304-016-0358-z
pubmed: 27040273
Sage P-Y, Trilling B, Waroquet P-A, Voirin D, Girard E, Faucheron J-L (2018) Laparoscopic delayed coloanal anastomosis without diverting ileostomy for low rectal cancer surgery: 85 consecutive patients from a single institution. Tech Coloproctol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-018-1813-2
doi: 10.1007/s10151-018-1813-2
pubmed: 30413997
Jarry J, Faucheron JL, Moreno W, Bellera CA, Evrard S (2011) Delayed colo-anal anastomosis is an alternative to prophylactic diverting stoma after total mesorectal excision for middle and low rectal carcinomas. Eur J Surg Oncol (EJSO). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2010.12.008
doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2010.12.008
Olagne E et al (2000) Functional results of delayed coloanal anastomosis after preoperative radiotherapy for lower third rectal cancer11No competing interests declared. J Am Coll Surg. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1072-7515(00)00756-0
doi: 10.1016/S1072-7515(00)00756-0
pubmed: 11129813
Hallet J, Milot H, Drolet S, Desrosiers E, Grégoire RC, Bouchard A (2014) The clinical results of the Turnbull-Cutait delayed coloanal anastomosis: a systematic review. Tech Coloproctol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-014-1132-1
doi: 10.1007/s10151-014-1132-1
pubmed: 24615720
Portale G, Popesc GO, Parotto M, Cavallin F (2019) Delayed colo-anal anastomosis for rectal cancer: pelvic morbidity, functional results and oncological outcomes: a systematic review. World J Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-019-04918-y
doi: 10.1007/s00268-019-04918-y
pubmed: 30690655
Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.2 (updated February 2021)., vol. Cochrane. 2021. Accessed: May 19, 2021. [Online]. Available: from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
pubmed: 19753108
pmcid: 2735783
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P-A (2004) Classification of surgical complications. Ann Surg. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae
doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae
pubmed: 15570203
pmcid: 1356513
Review Manager (RevMan) (2014) The Nordic Cochrane Centre. The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen
Xiong Y, Huang P, Ren QG (2016) Transanal pull-through procedure with delayed versus immediate coloanal anastomosis for anus-preserving curative resection of lower rectal cancer: a case-control study. Am Surg 82(6):533–539
doi: 10.1177/000313481608200615
Guner OS, Tumay LV (2021) <scp>Turnbull–Cutait</scp> technique without ileostomy after total mesorectal excision is associated with acceptably low early post-operative morbidity. ANZ J Surg. https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.16412
doi: 10.1111/ans.16412
pubmed: 33124139
Pujahari AK, Anand S (2015) Trans-anal exteriorisation of colon and delayed colo-anal anastomosis for sphincter preservation in low carcinoma rectum. Int J Colorectal Dis. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-014-2059-8
doi: 10.1007/s00384-014-2059-8
pubmed: 25370156
François M-O et al (2020) Delayed coloanal anastomosis: an alternative option for restorative rectal cancer surgery after high-dose pelvic radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Colorectal Dis. https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.15144
doi: 10.1111/codi.15144
pubmed: 32463973
Biondo S et al (2020) Two-stage turnbull-cutait pull-through coloanal anastomosis for low rectal cancer. JAMA Surg. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2020.1625
doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2020.1625
pubmed: 32492131
pmcid: 7270870
Chow A, Tilney HS, Paraskeva P, Jeyarajah S, Zacharakis E, Purkayastha S (2009) The morbidity surrounding reversal of defunctioning ileostomies: a systematic review of 48 studies including 6107 cases. Int J Colorectal Dis. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-009-0660-z
doi: 10.1007/s00384-009-0660-z
pubmed: 19221766
Celerier B, Denost Q, van Geluwe B, Pontallier A, Rullier E (2016) The risk of definitive stoma formation at 10 years after low and ultralow anterior resection for rectal cancer. Colorectal Dis. https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.13124
doi: 10.1111/codi.13124
pubmed: 26391723
Hoshino N et al (2018) Nomogram for predicting anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection for rectal cancer. Int J Colorectal Dis. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-018-2970-5
doi: 10.1007/s00384-018-2970-5
pubmed: 29411120
Tekkis P et al (2015) Hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis for low rectal cancer: technique and long-term outcome. Colorectal Dis. https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.13028
doi: 10.1111/codi.13028
pubmed: 26096142
Martin ST, Heneghan HM, Winter DC (2012) Systematic review of outcomes after intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer. Br J Surg. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.8677
doi: 10.1002/bjs.8677
pubmed: 23148025
Takahashi H et al (2018) The severity of anastomotic leakage may negatively impact the long-term prognosis of colorectal cancer. Anticancer Res. https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.12255
doi: 10.21873/anticanres.12255
pubmed: 30504409
Lange MM, van de Velde CJH (2008) Faecal and urinary incontinence after multimodality treatment of rectal cancer. PLoS Med. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050202
doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0050202
pubmed: 18842066
pmcid: 2561075