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
. 2025 Jan 7;25(1):11.
doi: 10.1186/s12893-024-02749-w.

Effect of anastomotic reinforcement with barded suture on anastomotic leakage prevention following laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a retrospective single-center study

Xinyu Qi #  1 , Kai Xu #  1 , Maoxing Liu #  1 , Fei Tan  1 , Pin Gao  1 , Chuanyong Zhou  1 , Zhendan Yao  1 , Nan Zhang  1 , Hong Yang  1 , Chenghai Zhang  1 , Jiadi Xing  1 , Ming Cui  1 , Xiangqian Su  2
Affiliations

Effect of anastomotic reinforcement with barded suture on anastomotic leakage prevention following laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a retrospective single-center study

Xinyu Qi et al. BMC Surg. .

Abstract

Background: Anastomotic leakage (AL) is a serious complication that may occur following the double stapling technique (DST). The study aims to investigate the efficacy of anastomotic reinforcement using barbed sutures in preventing AL after laparoscopic low anterior resection (LAR) for rectal cancer.

Methods: During the period from November 1, 2018 to November 1, 2023, a total of 725 consecutive patients who had underwent laparoscopic LAR for rectal cancer were enrolled in this study. The patients were divided into two groups: the continuous barbed suture reinforcement group (N = 296) and the control group (N = 429). Inter-group comparisons were used the chi-squared test, Fisher's exact test, and nonparametric tests. Independent risk or protective factors for AL were analyzed using the multivariate logistic regression.

Results: Among the 725 patients enrolled in this study, 24 patients (3.3%) were diagnosed with AL following surgery. The incidence of AL was lower in the reinforcement group when compared with the control group (1.4% vs. 4.7%, P = 0.014). In multivariate regression analyses, the neoadjuvant therapy (OR = 11.994, P < 0.01), tumor location (OR = 5.306, P = 0.015), anastomosis bleeding (OR = 58.822, P < 0.01), and number of staple firings used (≥ 3) (OR = 24.752, P < 0.01) were independent risk factors for AL, whereas the defunctioning stoma (OR = 0.051, P < 0.01) and reinforcing sutures (OR = 0.054, P = 0.001) were independent protective factors for AL in this study. No statistically significant differences were found in 36-item short-Form (SF-36) when evaluating the quality of patient's life between the two groups.

Conclusions: Laparoscopic continuous barbed suture reinforcement of anastomosis could reduce the incidence of AL without affecting the quality-of-life following LAR. Further popularization of this approach in clinical is warranted.

Trial registration: Retrospectively registered.

Keywords: Anastomotic leakage; Anastomotic reinforcement; Barded suture; Quality life; Rectal cancer.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Ethics approval and consent to participate: The study complies with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of the Peking University Cancer Hospital (2023YJZ57). As this was a retrospective study, informed consents from patients were not required. Consent for publication: Not applicable. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
A “Dog ear” structure. B Completion of continuous full-layer suture
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
The flowchart of patients included in this study
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Zhang T, Wang G, Fang G, Qiu L, Lu F, Yin K, et al. Clinical efficacy of anastomotic reinforcement suture in preventing anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2023;408(1):322. - PubMed
    1. Yang J, Chen Q, Jindou L, Cheng Y. The influence of anastomotic leakage for rectal cancer oncologic outcome: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Surg Oncol. 2020;121(8):1283–97. - PubMed
    1. Jutesten H, Buchwald PL, Angenete E, Rutegård M, Lydrup ML. High Risk of Low Anterior Resection Syndrome in Long-term Follow-up After Anastomotic Leakage in Anterior Resection for Rectal Cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2022;65(10):1264–73. - PubMed
    1. Knight CD, Griffen FD. An improved technique for low anterior resection of the rectum using the EEA stapler. Surgery. 1980;88(5):710–4. - PubMed
    1. Roumen RM, Rahusen FT, Wijnen MH, Croiset van Uchelen FA. “Dog ear” formation after double-stapled low anterior resection as a risk factor for anastomotic disruption. Dis Colon Rectum. 2000;43(4):522–5. - PubMed

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources