Technical risk factors for benign anastomotic strictures in colorectal and/or coloanal anastomosis: A retrospective case-control study.
benign anastomotic stricture
coloanal anastomosis
colorectal anastomosis
technical risk factors
Journal
Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland
ISSN: 1463-1318
Titre abrégé: Colorectal Dis
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100883611
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 Oct 2024
02 Oct 2024
Historique:
revised:
12
02
2024
received:
02
08
2023
accepted:
02
09
2024
medline:
3
10
2024
pubmed:
3
10
2024
entrez:
3
10
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Anastomotic stricture occurs in up to 30% of colorectal resections; however, evidence on risk factors and preventive measures remains scarce. This study aimed to identify technical factors responsible for increasing the risk for colorectal and coloanal anastomotic strictures. This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with anastomotic stricture who underwent resection and/or redo anastomosis between January 1, 2011 and August 1, 2021 in a tertiary referral centre. Patients with anastomotic stricture were compared with an equal number of randomly selected patients without anastomotic complications, who were operated on during the same time period. The main outcome measures were technical risk factors of anastomotic stricture. Each group included 50 patients who were similar for age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, distance of anastomosis to the dentate line and indication for surgery. Median follow-up was significantly longer in the non-stricture group (38.6 months vs. 12.6 months, p = 0.04). Splenic flexure mobilization [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.18 [2], 95% CI: 0.08-0.39, p < 0.001], high ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery (HR = 0.22, 95% CI: 0.09-0.5, p < 0.001) and high ligation of the inferior mesenteric vein (HR = 0.21, 95% CI: 0.09-0.50, p < 0.001) were associated with a lower likelihood of anastomotic stricture. Conversely, use of a 25-mm-diameter circular stapler (HR = 22.69, 95% CI: 2.69-191.10, p < 0.001), clinically significant anastomotic leak (HR = 3.94, 95% CI: 2.04-7.64, p < 0.001), firing the stapler more than once for rectal division (HR = 24.75, 95% CI: 6.85-89.38, p < 0.001) and diverting stoma (HR = 3.087, 95% CI: 1.736-5.491, p < 0.0001) were predictive of an anastomotic stricture. Failure to mobilize the splenic flexure and to perform high ligation of the inferior mesenteric vessels were associated with higher odds of anastomotic stricture. A small-diameter circular stapler and multiple distal stapler firings were also associated with anastomotic stricture. These data support routine splenic flexure ligation and high ligation of the inferior mesenteric vessels as well as avoidance of both multiple stapler firings for rectal transection and a 25-mm circular stapler for anastomosis..
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024 The Author(s). Colorectal Disease published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.
Références
Suchan KL, Muldner A, Manegold BC. Endoscopic treatment of postoperative colorectal anastomotic strictures. Surg Endosc. 2003;17:1110–1113.
Hiranyakas A, Da Silva G, Denoya P, Shawki S, Wexner SD. Colorectal anastomotic stricture: is it associated with inadequate colonic mobilization? Tech Coloproctol. 2013;17:371–375.
Hanna DN, Hawkins AT. Colorectal: Management of postoperative complications in colorectal surgery. Surg Clin North Am. 2021;101:717–729.
von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, et al. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. BMJ. 2007;335:806–808.
Kanda Y. Investigation of the freely available easy‐to‐use software 'EZR' for medical statistics. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2013;48:452–458. https://doi.org/10.1038/bmt.2012.244
Geller A, Gal E. Dilation of benign strictures following low anterior resection using Savary‐Gilliard bougies. Endoscopic treatment of benign anastomotic colorectal stenosis with electrocautery. Gastrointest Endosc. 2001;52:277–279.
Biraima M, Adamina M, Jost R, Breitenstein S, Soll C. Long‐term results of endoscopic balloon dilation for treatment of colorectal anastomotic stenosis. Surg Endosc. 2016;30:4432–4437.
Johansson C. Endoscopic dilation of rectal strictures: a prospective study of 18 cases. Dis Colon Rectum. 1996;39:423–428.
Garcea G, Sutton CD, Lloyd TD, Jameson J, Scott A, Kelly MJ. Management of benign rectal strictures: a review of present therapeutic procedures. Dis Colon Rectum. 2003;46:1451–1460.
Luck A, Chapuis P, Sinclair G, Hood J. Endoscopic laser stricturotomy and balloon dilatation for benign colorectal strictures. ANZ J Surg. 2001;71:594–597.
Rondelli F, Pasculli A, De Rosa M, Avenia S, Bugiantella W. Is routine splenic flexure mobilization always necessary in laparotomic or laparoscopic anterior rectal resection? A systematic review and comprehensive meta‐analysis. Updat Surg. 2021;73:1643–1661.
Chand M, Miskovic D, Parvaiz AC. Is splenic flexure mobilization necessary in laparoscopic anterior resection? Dis Colon Rectum. 2012;55:1195–1197.
Katory M, Tang CL, Koh WL, Fook‐Chong SMC, Loi TT, Ooi BS, et al. A 6‐year review of surgical morbidity and oncological outcome after high anterior resection for colorectal malignancy with and without splenic flexure mobilization. Color Dis. 2008;10:165–169.
Hayden DM, Mora Pinzon MC, Francescatti AB, Saclarides TJ. Patient factors may predict anastomotic complications after rectal cancer surgery: anastomotic complications in rectal cancer. Ann Med Surg. 2014;4:11–16.
Kye BH, Kim HJ, Kim HS, Kim JG, Cho HM. How much colonic redundancy could be obtained by splenic flexure mobilization in laparoscopic anterior or low anterior resection? Int J Med Sci. 2014;11:857–862.
Bonnet S, Berger A, Hentati N, Abid B, Chevallier JM, Wind P, et al. High tie versus low tie vascular ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery in colorectal cancer surgery: impact on the gain in colon length and implications on the feasibility of anastomoses. Dis Colon Rectum. 2012;55:515–521.
Reif de Paula T, Simon H, Shah M, Lee‐Kong S, Kiely JM, Kiran RP, et al. Analysis of the impact of EEA stapler size on risk of anastomotic complications in colorectal anastomosis: does size matter? Tech Coloproctol. 2020;24:283–290.
Sandilos G, Zhu C, Giugliano DN, Kwiatt M, Wang YR, Hunter K, et al. Risk factors associated with the development of colorectal anastomotic strictures prior to diverting loop ileostomy reversal. Am Surg. 2023;89:1654–1660.
Resendiz A, Martini G, Sensi B, Reddavid R, Marchiori G, Franco C, et al. The Italian version of the LARS score: cross‐cultural adaptation and validation. An Italian Society of Surgical Oncology‐Colorectal Cancer Network (SICO‐CCN) collaborative study. Int J Color Dis. 2021;36:1805–1810.
Kim CW, Baek SJ, Hur H, Min BS, Baik SH, Kim NK. Anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection for rectal cancer is different between minimally invasive surgery and open surgery. Ann Surg. 2016;263:130–137.
Park JS, Choi GS, Kim SH, Kim HR, Kim NK, Lee KY, et al. Multicenter analysis of risk factors for anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic rectal cancer excision: the Korean laparoscopic colorectal surgery study group. Ann Surg. 2013;257:665–671.
Emile SH, Barsom SH, Elfallal AH, Wexner SD. Comprehensive literature review of the outcome, modifications, and alternatives to double‐stapled low pelvic colorectal anastomosis. Surgery. 2022;172:512–521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2022.02.019
[Cited 2023 Feb 7]. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/regulatory‐information/search‐fda‐guidance‐documents/surgical‐staplers‐and‐staples‐internal‐use‐labeling‐recommendations.
Spinelli A, Foppa C, Carvello M, Sacchi M, de Lucia F, Clerico G, et al. Transanal transection and single‐stapled anastomosis (TTSS): a comparison of anastomotic leak rates with the double‐stapled technique and with transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for rectal cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2021;47:3123–3129.
Vogel I, Reeves N, Tanis PJ, Bemelman WA, Torkington J, Hompes R, et al. Impact of a defunctioning ileostomy and time to stoma closure on bowel function after low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Tech Coloproctol. 2021;25:751–760. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151‐021‐02436‐5
Keane C, Park J, Öberg S, Wedin A, Bock D, O'Grady G, et al. Functional outcomes from a randomized trial of early closure of temporary ileostomy after rectal excision for cancer. Br J Surg. 2019;106:645–652. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.11092