Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Avoidance of anastomotic complications in low anterior resection of the rectum

  • Original Contributions
  • Published:
Diseases of the Colon & Rectum

Abstract

PURPOSE: This retrospective study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of suction-irrigation drainage systems in reducing anastomotic complications. The current trend for lesions of the upper and middle rectum emphasizes maintaining an intact anal sphincter mechanism as long as limits of resection are not compromised. Removal of the rectosigmoid colon with an anastomosis below the peritoneal reflection accomplishes this goal but with appreciable morbidity and mortality, which is in great part related to subsequent anastomotic breakdown and resultant pelvic abscess and fecal fistula formation. The presence of collections of blood, serum, and cellular debris contribute significantly to anastomotic disruption by serving as a culture medium in which bacteria may thrive, leading to abscess formation with subsequent deleterious effects on the integrity of the adjacent low lying anastomosis. Many surgeons accepted this risk and routinely performed diverting colostomies to minimize the consequences of anastomotic disruption below the peritoneal reflection. The authors felt that if this risk could be sufficiently reduced, it would obviate the need for a protecting stoma. METHODS: From 1980 to 1988, 60 consecutive patients were subjected to anterior or low anterior resections in which a closed Shirley sump irrigation system was used to facilitate postoperative drainage of the pelvis and thus avoid hematoma formation. Since this original study group of 60 patients, another 100 consecutive patients have been entered into this study. This cohort group again consisted of patients with lesions of the upper, middle, and lower rectum who underwent anterior or low anterior resections of the rectum. RESULTS: Fifty-three of the original 60 patients did not have protecting stomas. Clinical leak rate for this series was 1.67 percent. Clinical leak rate for this updated series of 100 patients was 1 percent, with overall clinical leak rate of 1.25 percent in 160 consecutive patients. There were no deaths in the series, and overall morbidity was 7.5 percent. CONCLUSIONS: The authors felt that removing blood, serum, and cellular debris from the pelvis following resections of all or part of the rectum minimizes the risk of anastomotic disruption. With this routine, covering colostomies are no longer required for most patients undergoing anterior or low anterior resections of all or part of the mesorectum.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Goligher JC, Graham NG, DeDambal FT. Anastomotic dehiscence after anterior resection of the rectum and sigmoid colon. Br J Surg 1970;57:109–18.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Gingold BS, Jagelman DG. The value of pelvic suction irrigation in reducing morbidity of low anterior resection of the rectum—a ten year experience. Surgery 1982;91:394–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Remington JH, Beahrs OH, Goligher JC, Hunter AF, Turnbull RB. Symposium: anastomotic problems colon and rectal surgery. Contemp Surg 1975;6:118–59.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Graffner H, Fredlund P, Olsson S, Oscarson J, Petersson B-G. Protective colostomy in low anterior resection of the rectum using the EEA stapling instrument: a randomized study. Dis Colon Rectum 1983;26:87–90.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Mealy K, Burke P, Hyland J. Anterior resection without defunctioning colostomy: a question of safety. Br J Surg 1992;79:305–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Karanjia ND, Corder AP, Holdsworth PJ, Heald RJ. The risk of peritonitis and fatal septicemia and the need to defunctionalize low anastomosis. Br J Surg 1991;78:196–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Turnbull R, Cuthbertson A. Abdomino-rectal pull-through resection for cancer and Hirschsprung's disease. Cleve Clin Q 1961;28:109–15.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Cutait DE, Figliolini FJ. A new method of colorectal anastomosis in abdominoperineal resection. Dis Colon Rectum 1961;4:335–42.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Friedmann P, Garb J, Mcabe D,et al. Intestinal anastomosis after preoperative radiation therapy for carcinoma of the rectum. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1987;164:257–61.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kratzer G, Alia R. Low anterior resection for cancer. Am J Surg 1980;139:221–2.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ling L, Broomes A, Ryden S. Low anterior resection using stapling instrument. Acta Chir Scand 1979;145:487–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Sharefkin J, Joffe N, Silem W. Anastomotic dehiscence after low anterior resection of the rectum. Am J Surg 1978;135:519–23.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Wilson S, Beahrs O. The curative treatment of the sigmoid, rectosigmoid and rectum. Ann Surg 1976;183:556–65.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Scher K, Scott-Conner C, Jones C, Leach M. Comparison of stapled and sutured anastomosis in colonic operations. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1982;155:489–93.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Redmond HP, Austin OM, Cleary AP, Deasy JM. Safety of double stapled anastomosis in low anterior resections. Br J Surg 1993;80:924–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Pollard CW, Nivatvongs S, Rojanasakul A, Ilstrup DM. Carcinoma of the rectum: profiles of intraoperative and early postoperative complications. Dis Colon Rectum 1994;37:866–74.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Karanjia ND, Corder AP, Bern PO, Heald RJ. Leakage from stapled low anastomosis after total mesorectal excision for carcinoma of the rectum. Br J Surg 1994;81:1224–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Sagar PM, Couse N, Kerin M, May J, Macfie J. Randomized trial of drainage of colorectal anastomosis. Br J Surg 1993;80:769–71.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Foster ME. To drain or not after colorectal surgery. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1988;70:158–60.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Johnson CD, Lamont PM, Orr N, Lennox M. Is a drain necessary after colonic anastomosis? J R Soc Med 1989;82:661–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hoffman J, Shokouh-Amiri MH, Damm P, Jensen R. A prospective controlled study of prophylactic drainage after colonic anastomoses. Dis Colon Rectum 1987;30:449–52.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Graf W, Glimelius B, Bergstrom R. Complications after double and single stapling in rectal surgery. Eur J Surg 1991;157:543–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Baran JJ, Goldstein SD, Resnik AM. The double staple technique in colorectal anastomosis: a critical review. Am J Surg 1992;58:170–2.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Dixon AR, Maxwell WA, Thornton HJ. Carcinoma of the rectum; a ten year experience. Br J Surg 1991;78:308–11.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

About this article

Cite this article

Hirsch, C.J., Gingold, B.S. & Wallack, M.K. Avoidance of anastomotic complications in low anterior resection of the rectum. Dis Colon Rectum 40, 42–46 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02055680

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02055680

Key words

Navigation