Skip to main content
Log in

Anastomosis to the rectum

Operative experience

  • Published:
Diseases of the Colon & Rectum

Abstract

Four hundred sixty-six consecutive procedures involving anastomosis to the rectum were performed between March 1969 and December 1982. Three hundred ninety-six (85 percent) were stapled anastomoses and 70 (15 percent) were hand-sutured anastomoses. The stapled anastomoses were constructed using the GIA® or EEA® instrument, some of the latter utilizing a pull-through technique. The hand-sutured anastomoses were constructed in the pelvic space, or externally as a staged pull-through procedure. A diverting stoma was constructed in all 14 staged pull-through procedures, in 47 of 56 (84 percent) conventional hand-sutured anastomoses, and in 38 of 396 (10 percent) stapled anastomoses. While the majority of very low anastomoses (0 to 5 cm from the dentate line) were stapled, 13 conventional hand-sutured anastomoses and all 14 of the staged pull-through procedures were constructed at this level. One patient (0.2 percent) died as the result of an anastomotic complication. Twelve patients (2.5 percent) had anastomotic complications requiring reoperation. The reoperation rate for stapled anastomoses was six of 396 (1.5 percent). For hand-sutured anastomoses, the reoperation rate was six of 70 (8.6 percent). The results show that, for anastomosis to the rectum, stapling instruments are at least as good as hand-suturing. Both stapling techniques and hand-suturing techniques provide the surgeon the capacity to construct safely very low anastomoses. A temporary, diverting stoma is required much less frequently with stapled than with hand-sutured anastomoses. The need for a permanent colostomy should be determined by the stage and level of disease, the systemic health of the patient, and the patient's anatomy, rather than by the selection of anastomotic technique.

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. Ravitch MM, Ravarola A. Enteroanastomosis with an automatic instrument. Surgery 1966;59:270–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Steichen FM. The use of staplers in anatomical side-to-side and functional end-to-end enteroanastomoses. Surgery 1968;64:948–53.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Ravitch MM, Steichen FM. Techniques of stapler suturing in the gastrointestinal tract. Ann Surg 1972;175:815–37.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Nance FC. New techniques of gastrointestinal anastomoses with the EEA stapler. Ann Surg 1979;189:587–600.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Ravitch MM, Steichen FM. A stapling instrument for end-to-end inverting anastomoses in the gastrointestinal tract. Ann Surg 1979;189:791–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Goligher JC. Recent trends in the practice of sphincter-saving excision for rectal cancer. Ann Roy Coll; Surg Engl 1979;61:169–76.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Smith LE. Anastomosis with EEA stapler after anterior colonic resection. Dis Colon Rectum 1981;24:236–42.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Cutait DE, Cutait R, Da Silva JH, et al. Stapled anastomosis in colorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 1981;24:155–60.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Detry RJ, Kestens PJ. Colorectal anastomoses with the EEA stapler. World J Surg 1981;5:739–42.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Heald RJ, Leicester RJ. The low stapled anastomosis. Dis Colon Rectum 1981;24:437–44.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Turnbull RB, Cuthbertson A. Abdominorectal pull-through resection for cancer and for Hirschsprung's disease: delayed posterior colorectal anastomosis. Cleve Clin Q 1961;28:109–15.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Morganstern L, Yamakana T, Ben-Shoshan M, Lippman H. Anastomotic leakage after low colonic anastomosis. Am J Surg 1972;123:104–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Localio SA, Eng K, Gouge TH, Ranson JHC. Abdominosacral resection for carcinoma of the midrectum: ten years experience. Ann Surg 1978;188:475–80.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Goligher JC, Duthie HL, De Dombal FT, Watts JM. Abdominoanal pull-through excision for tumors of the mid-third of the rectum. Br J Surg 1965;52:323–35.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Weakley FL, Wilk PJ. Stapling in intestinal surgery. South Med J 1982;75:1318–23.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Adloff M, Arnaud JP, Beehary S. Stapled vs. sutured colorectal anastomosis. Arch Surg 1980;115:1436–38.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Heald RJ. Towards few colostomies: the impact of circular stapling devices on the surgery of rectal cancer in a district hospital. Br J Surg 1980;67:198–200.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Beart RW, Kelly KA. Randomized prospective evaluation of the EEA stapler for colorectal anastomosis. Am J Surg 1981;141:143–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

About this article

Cite this article

Steinhagen, R.M., Weakley, F.L. Anastomosis to the rectum. Dis Colon Rectum 28, 105–109 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02552657

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02552657

Key words

Navigation