Score prediction of anastomotic leak in colorectal surgery: a systematic review.
Anastomotic leak
Colorectal surgery
Postoperative complications
Risk assessment
Score
Journal
Surgical endoscopy
ISSN: 1432-2218
Titre abrégé: Surg Endosc
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8806653
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
28 Feb 2024
28 Feb 2024
Historique:
received:
10
10
2023
accepted:
18
01
2024
medline:
29
2
2024
pubmed:
29
2
2024
entrez:
28
2
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Predicting the risk of anastomotic leak (AL) is of importance when defining the optimal surgical strategy in colorectal surgery. Our objective was to perform a systematic review of existing scores in the field. We followed the PRISMA checklist (S1 Checklist). Medline, Cochrane Central and Embase were searched for observational studies reporting on scores predicting AL after the creation of a colorectal anastomosis. Studies reporting only validation of existing scores and/or scores based on post-operative variables were excluded. PRISMA 2020 recommendations were followed. Qualitative analysis was performed. Eight hundred articles were identified. Seven hundred and ninety-one articles were excluded after title/abstract and full-text screening, leaving nine studies for analysis. Scores notably included the Colon Leakage Score, the modified Colon Leakage Score, the REAL score, www.anastomoticleak.com and the PROCOLE score. Four studies (44.4%) included more than 1.000 patients and one extracted data from existing studies (meta-analysis of risk factors). Scores included the following pre-operative variables: age (44.4%), sex (77.8%), ASA score (66.6%), BMI (33.3%), diabetes (22.2%), respiratory comorbidity (22.2%), cardiovascular comorbidity (11.1%), liver comorbidity (11.1%), weight loss (11.1%), smoking (33.3%), alcohol consumption (33.3%), steroid consumption (33.3%), neo-adjuvant treatment (44.9%), anticoagulation (11.1%), hematocrit concentration (22.2%), total proteins concentration (11.1%), white blood cell count (11.1%), albumin concentration (11.1%), distance from the anal verge (77.8%), number of hospital beds (11.1%), pre-operative bowel preparation (11.1%) and indication for surgery (11.1%). Scores included the following peri-operative variables: emergency surgery (22.2%), surgical approach (22.2%), duration of surgery (66.6%), blood loss/transfusion (55.6%), additional procedure (33.3%), operative complication (22.2%), wound contamination class (1.11%), mechanical anastomosis (1.11%) and experience of the surgeon (11.1%). Five studies (55.6%) reported the area under the curve (AUC) of the scores, and four (44.4%) included a validation set. Existing scores are heterogeneous in the identification of pre-operative variables allowing predicting AL. A majority of scores was established from small cohorts of patients which, considering the low incidence of AL, might lead to miss potential predictors of AL. AUC is seldom reported. We recommend that new scores to predict the risk of AL in colorectal surgery to be based on large cohorts of patients, to include a validation set and to report the AUC.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38418633
doi: 10.1007/s00464-024-10705-1
pii: 10.1007/s00464-024-10705-1
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
European Society of Coloproctology Collaborating G (2018) The 2017 European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP) international snapshot audit of left colon, sigmoid and rectal resections—executive summary. Colorectal Dis 20(Suppl 6):13–14
doi: 10.1111/codi.14391
Rencuzogullari A et al (2017) Predictors of anastomotic leak in elderly patients after colectomy: nomogram-based assessment from the American college of surgeons national surgical quality program procedure-targeted cohort. Dis Colon Rectum 60(5):527–536
doi: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000000789
pubmed: 28383453
Denost Q et al (2021) Impact of early biochemical diagnosis of anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer surgery: long-term results from GRECCAR 5 trial. Br J Surg 108(6):605–608
doi: 10.1093/bjs/znab003
pubmed: 33793764
Ha GW, Kim JH, Lee MR (2017) Oncologic impact of anastomotic leakage following colorectal cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 24(11):3289–3299
doi: 10.1245/s10434-017-5881-8
pubmed: 28608118
Hammond J et al (2014) The burden of gastrointestinal anastomotic leaks: an evaluation of clinical and economic outcomes. J Gastrointest Surg 18(6):1176–1185
doi: 10.1007/s11605-014-2506-4
pubmed: 24671472
pmcid: 4028541
Vogel I et al (2022) Overall readmissions and readmissions related to dehydration after creation of an ileostomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Tech Coloproctol 26(5):333–349
doi: 10.1007/s10151-022-02580-6
pubmed: 35192122
pmcid: 9018644
Floodeen H et al (2017) Costs and resource use following defunctioning stoma in low anterior resection for cancer—a long-term analysis of a randomized multicenter trial. Eur J Surg Oncol 43(2):330–336
doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2016.12.003
pubmed: 28069399
Sciuto A et al (2018) Predictive factors for anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic colorectal surgery. World J Gastroenterol 24(21):2247–2260
doi: 10.3748/wjg.v24.i21.2247
pubmed: 29881234
pmcid: 5989239
Russ AJ, Casillas MA (2016) Gut microbiota and colorectal surgery: impact on postoperative complications. Clin Colon Rectal Surg 29(3):253–257
doi: 10.1055/s-0036-1584502
pubmed: 27582651
pmcid: 4991971
van Praagh JB et al (2016) Intestinal microbiota and anastomotic leakage of stapled colorectal anastomoses: a pilot study. Surg Endosc 30(6):2259–2265
doi: 10.1007/s00464-015-4508-z
pubmed: 26385781
van Praagh JB et al (2019) Mucus microbiome of anastomotic tissue during surgery has predictive value for colorectal anastomotic leakage. Ann Surg 269(5):911–916
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002651
pubmed: 29303807
Jafari MD et al (2013) The use of indocyanine green fluorescence to assess anastomotic perfusion during robotic assisted laparoscopic rectal surgery. Surg Endosc 27(8):3003–3008
doi: 10.1007/s00464-013-2832-8
pubmed: 23404152
Meyer J et al (2021) How do Swiss surgeons perform fluorescence angiography in colorectal surgery? Tech Coloproctol 25(5):657–658
doi: 10.1007/s10151-021-02427-6
pubmed: 33761031
Krarup PM et al (2012) A nationwide study on anastomotic leakage after colonic cancer surgery. Colorectal Dis 14(10):e661–e667
doi: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2012.03079.x
pubmed: 22564292
Espin Basany E et al (2020) Preoperative oral antibiotics and surgical-site infections in colon surgery (ORALEV): a multicentre, single-blind, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 5(8):729–738
doi: 10.1016/S2468-1253(20)30075-3
pubmed: 32325012
Meyer J et al (2022) Pre-operative iron increases haemoglobin concentration before abdominal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Sci Rep 12(1):2158
doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-05283-y
pubmed: 35140245
pmcid: 8828750
Gustafsson UO et al (2019) Guidelines for perioperative care in elective colorectal surgery: enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS((R))) society recommendations: 2018. World J Surg 43(3):659–695
doi: 10.1007/s00268-018-4844-y
pubmed: 30426190
Page MJ et al (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372:n71
doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71
pubmed: 33782057
pmcid: 8005924
Rojas-Machado SA et al (2016) Prediction of anastomotic leak in colorectal cancer surgery based on a new prognostic index PROCOLE (prognostic colorectal leakage) developed from the meta-analysis of observational studies of risk factors. Int J Colorectal Dis 31(2):197–210
doi: 10.1007/s00384-015-2422-4
pubmed: 26507962
Frasson M et al (2015) Risk factors for anastomotic leak after colon resection for cancer: multivariate analysis and nomogram from a multicentric, prospective, national study with 3193 patients. Ann Surg 262(2):321–330
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000000973
pubmed: 25361221
Pasic F, Salkic NN (2013) Predictive score for anastomotic leakage after elective colorectal cancer surgery: a decision making tool for choice of protective measures. Surg Endosc 27(10):3877–3882
doi: 10.1007/s00464-013-2997-1
pubmed: 23708715
Dekker JW et al (2011) Predicting the risk of anastomotic leakage in left-sided colorectal surgery using a colon leakage score. J Surg Res 166(1):e27-34
doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2010.11.004
pubmed: 21195424
Arezzo A et al (2019) The REAL (REctal Anastomotic Leak) score for prediction of anastomotic leak after rectal cancer surgery. Tech Coloproctol 23(7):649–663
doi: 10.1007/s10151-019-02028-4
pubmed: 31240416
McKenna NP et al (2020) Development of a risk score to predict anastomotic leak after left-sided colectomy: which patients warrant diversion? J Gastrointest Surg 24(1):132–143
doi: 10.1007/s11605-019-04293-y
pubmed: 31250368
Yang SU et al (2019) Modified colon leakage score to predict anastomotic leakage in patients who underwent left-sided colorectal surgery. J Clin Med 8(9):1450
doi: 10.3390/jcm8091450
pubmed: 31547283
pmcid: 6780090
Kim CH et al (2017) Nomogram prediction of anastomotic leakage and determination of an effective surgical strategy for reducing anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. Gastroenterol Res Pract 2017:4510561
doi: 10.1155/2017/4510561
pubmed: 28592967
pmcid: 5448048
Sammour T et al (2017) A simple web-based risk calculator ( www.anastomoticleak.com ) is superior to the surgeon’s estimate of anastomotic leak after colon cancer resection. Tech Coloproctol 21(1):35–41
Yu XQ et al (2016) Utility of colon leakage score in left-sided colorectal surgery. J Surg Res 202(2):398–402
doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2015.12.046
pubmed: 27229115
Pochhammer J et al (2018) Calcification of the iliac arteries: a marker for leakage risk in rectal anastomosis-a blinded clinical trial. Int J Colorectal Dis 33(2):163–170
doi: 10.1007/s00384-017-2949-7
pubmed: 29273883
Zhou C et al (2018) Male gender is associated with an increased risk of anastomotic leak in rectal cancer patients after total mesorectal excision. Gastroenterol Rep (Oxf) 6(2):137–143
doi: 10.1093/gastro/gox039
pubmed: 29780603
Ryan OK et al (2020) Systematic review and meta-analysis comparing primary resection and anastomosis versus Hartmann’s procedure for the management of acute perforated diverticulitis with generalised peritonitis. Tech Coloproctol 24(6):527–543
doi: 10.1007/s10151-020-02172-2
pubmed: 32124112
Lambrichts DPV et al (2019) Hartmann’s procedure versus sigmoidectomy with primary anastomosis for perforated diverticulitis with purulent or faecal peritonitis (LADIES): a multicentre, parallel-group, randomised, open-label, superiority trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 4(8):599–610
doi: 10.1016/S2468-1253(19)30174-8
pubmed: 31178342