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
. 2023 Jul 29;408(1):289.
doi: 10.1007/s00423-023-03027-8.

The effect of reinforcing sutures and trans-anal drainage tube on the outcome of laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer: propensity score‑matched analysis

Hong-Qiang Zhang  1 , Lei Xu  1 , Zhen-Ling Wang  1 , Yu Shao  1 , Yang Chen  1 , Yun-Fei Lu  1 , Zan Fu  2
Affiliations

The effect of reinforcing sutures and trans-anal drainage tube on the outcome of laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer: propensity score‑matched analysis

Hong-Qiang Zhang et al. Langenbecks Arch Surg. .

Abstract

Objectives: Laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer is currently the predominant treatment modality for rectal tumors, with an ongoing focus on reducing the incidence of postoperative complications. In an effort to decrease the occurrence of anastomotic leakage, two additional steps worth considering are reinforcing the anastomosis with a barbed suture and retaining an anal drain as part of the procedure. The results of the operation were analyzed by comparing them to cases where the anastomosis was performed with a stapler alone.

Methods: This study retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent laparoscopic radical rectal cancer surgery between July 2020 and March 2023. The patients were categorized into three cohorts based on the postoperative management following instrumented anastomosis: cohort A, the instrumented anastomosis alone group; cohort B, the reinforced suture group; and cohort C, the reinforced suture and indwelling transanal drainage tube group. Propensity score matching was performed twice in a 1:1 ratio, comparing cohort B to cohort A and cohort C to cohort B. The objective was to compare the benefits and drawbacks among the different groups in terms of operative time, postoperative outcomes and operative costs.

Results: 529 patients with laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer were eligible for inclusion. the instrumented anastomosis alone group, reinforced suture group and the reinforced suture and indwelling transanal drainage tube group were performed in 205 patients, 198 patients and 126 patients, respectively. Cohort A and Cohort B differed in three variables after PSM: total operative time (p = 0.018), postoperative hospital stay (p < 0.001) and incidence of anastomotic leakage (p = 0.038). Cohort B had a longer total operative time, shorter postoperative hospital stay and a lower incidence of anastomotic leakage. Similarly, cohort C had less postoperative drainage (P = 0.01) and a longer postoperative hospital stay (P = 0.003) when cohort B and cohort C were matched for propensity scores. There was no significant difference in the cost of surgery between the three cohorts.

Conclusions: The incorporation of barbed suture reinforcement significantly reduces the occurrence of postoperative anastomotic leakage in rectal cancer surgeries. On the other hand, although trans-anal drainage was used as an additional measure to the reinforcement suture of the anastomosis, the utilization of trans-anal drainage tubes does not demonstrate a significant improvement in surgical outcomes.

Keywords: Anastomotic leakage; Laparoscopic resection; Propensity score matching; Reinforced suture; Trans-anal drainage tube.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, Bray F (2021) Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin 71(3):209–249. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21660 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Benson AB, Venook AP, Al-Hawary MM, Azad N, Chen YJ, Ciombor KK, Cohen S, Cooper HS, Deming D, Garrido-Laguna I, Grem JL, Gunn A, Hecht JR, Hoffe S, Hubbard J, Hunt S, Jeck W, Johung KL, Kirilcuk N, Krishnamurthi S, Maratt JK, Messersmith WA, Meyerhardt J, Miller ED, Mulcahy MF, Nurkin S, Overman MJ, Parikh A, Patel H, Pedersen K, Saltz L, Schneider C, Shibata D, Skibber JM, Sofocleous CT, Stotsky-Himelfarb E, Tavakkoli A, Willett CG, Gregory K, Gurski L (2022) Rectal Cancer, Version 2.2022, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 20(10):1139–1167. https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2022.0051 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Park JW, Kang SB, Hao J, Lim SB, Choi HS, Kim DW, Chang HJ, Kim DY, Jung KH, Kim TY, Kang GH, Chie EK, Kim SY, Sohn DK, Kim JS, Lee HS, Kim JH, Jeong SY, Oh JH (2021) Open versus laparoscopic surgery for mid or low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (COREAN trial): 10-year follow-up of an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 6(7):569–577. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-1253(21)00094-7 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hida K, Okamura R, Sakai Y, Konishi T, Akagi T, Yamaguchi T, Akiyoshi T, Fukuda M, Yamamoto S, Yamamoto M, Nishigori T, Kawada K, Hasegawa S, Morita S, Watanabe M (2018) Open versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Advanced Low Rectal Cancer: A Large, Multicenter, Propensity Score Matched Cohort Study in Japan. Ann Surg 268(2):318–324. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002329 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Taflampas P, Christodoulakis M, Tsiftsis DD (2009) Anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection for rectal cancer: facts, obscurity, and fiction. Surg Today 39(3):183–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-008-3835-2 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources