Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2022 Dec;36(12):8881-8892.
doi: 10.1007/s00464-022-09323-6. Epub 2022 May 23.

Early postoperative endoscopic evaluation of rectal anastomoses: a prospective cross-sectional study

Affiliations
Clinical Trial

Early postoperative endoscopic evaluation of rectal anastomoses: a prospective cross-sectional study

Steffen Axt et al. Surg Endosc. 2022 Dec.

Abstract

Background: Reported incidence of anastomotic leakage (AL) of rectal anastomoses is up to 29% with an overall mortality up to 12%. Nevertheless, there is no uniform evidence-based diagnostic procedure for early detection of AL. The objective of this prospective clinical trial was to demonstrate the diagnostic value of early postoperative flexible endoscopy for rectal anastomosis evaluation.

Methods: Flexible endoscopy between 5 and 8th postoperative day was performed consecutively in 90 asymptomatic patients. Sample size calculation was made using the two-stage Simon design. Diagnostic value was measured by management change after endoscopic evaluation. Anastomoses were categorized according to a new classification. Study is registered in German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00019217).

Results: Of the 90 anastomoses, 59 (65.6%) were unsuspicious. 20 (22.2%) were suspicious with partial fibrin plaques (n = 15), intramural hematoma and/or local blood coagulum (n = 4) and ischemic area in one. 17 of these anastomoses were treated conservatively under monitoring. In three a further endoscopic re-evaluation was performed and as consequence one patient underwent endoscopic vacuum therapy. 11 (12.2%) AL were detected. Here, two could be treated conservatively under monitoring, four with endoscopic vacuum therapy and five needed revision surgery. No intervention-related adverse events occurred. A change in postoperative management was made in 31 (34.4%) patients what caused a significant improvement of diagnosis of AL (p < 0.001).

Conclusions: Early postoperative endoscopic evaluation of rectal anastomoses is a safe procedure thus allows early detection of AL. Early treatment for suspicious anastomoses or AL could be adapted to avoid severe morbidity and mortality.

Keywords: Anastomotic leakage; Colorectal anastomosis; Colorectal surgery; Flexible endoscopy; Postoperative management.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Steffen Axt, Kristin Haller, Peter Wilhelm, Claudius Falch, Peter Martus, Jonas Johannink, Jens Rolinger, Christian Beltzer, Lena Axt, Alfred Königsrainer, and Andreas Kirschniak have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow chart and study examination results
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Unsuspicious anastomosis (Type 0)
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Suspicious anastomosis with fibrin plaque (Type 1a); A: Intestinal lumen; Arrow: Fibrin plaque
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Suspicious anastomosis with Hematoma/non-mobilizable blood coagulum (Type 1b); Arrow: Non-mobilizable blood coagulum
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Suspicious anastomosis with ischemic area (Type 1c); A: Intestinal lumen; Arrow: Anastomosis
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Insufficient anastomosis with leak < 10 mm (Type 2a); A: Intestinal lumen; B: “Blind branch”; Arrow: Anastomotic leak (< 10 mm)
Fig. 7
Fig. 7
Insufficient anastomosis with leak > 10 mm (Type 2b); A: Intestinal lumen; B: Anastomotic leak (> 10 mm)

References

    1. Rahbari NN, Weitz J, Hohenberger W, Heald RJ, Moran B, Ulrich A, Holm T, Wong WD, Tiret E, Moriya Y, Laurberg S, den Dulk M, van de Velde C, Buchler MW. Definition and grading of anastomotic leakage following anterior resection of the rectum: a proposal by the International Study Group of Rectal Cancer. Surgery. 2010;147:339–351. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2009.10.012. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Paun BC, Cassie S, MacLean AR, Dixon E, Buie WD. Postoperative complications following surgery for rectal cancer. Ann Surg. 2010;251:807–818. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181dae4ed. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Karim A, Cubas V, Zaman S, Khan S, Patel H, Waterland P. Anastomotic leak and cancer-specific outcomes after curative rectal cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Tech Coloproctol. 2020;24:513–525. doi: 10.1007/s10151-020-02153-5. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Baum PDJ, Lichthardt S, Kastner C, Schlegel N, Germer CT, Wiegering A. Mortality and complications following visceral surgery—a nationwide analysis based on the diagnostic categories used in Germany hospital invoicing data. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2019;116:739–146. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Marres CCM, van de Ven AWH, Leijssen LGJ, Verbeek PCM, Bemelman WA, Buskens CJ. Colorectal anastomotic leak: delay in reintervention after false-negative computed tomography scan is a reason for concern. Tech Coloproctol. 2017;21:709–714. doi: 10.1007/s10151-017-1689-6. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Associated data