Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Image-guided percutaneous drainage vs. surgical repair of gastrointestinal anastomotic leaks: is there a difference in hospital course or hospitalization cost?

  • Published:
Abdominal Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To identify differences in hospital course and hospitalization cost when comparing image-guided percutaneous drainage with surgical repair for gastrointestinal anastomotic leaks.

Materials and methods

A retrospective IRB-approved search using key words “leak” and/or “anastomotic” was performed on all adult CT reports from 2002 to 2011. CT examinations were reviewed for evidence of a postoperative gastrointestinal leak and assigned a confidence score of 1–5 (1 = no leak, 5 = definite leak). Patients with an average confidence score <4 were excluded. Type of surgery, patient data, method of leak management, number of hospital admissions, length of hospital stay, discharge disposition, number of CT examinations, number of drains, and hospitalization costs were collected.

Results

One hundred thirty-nine patients had radiographic evidence of a gastrointestinal anastomotic leak (esophageal, gastric, small bowel or colonic). Nine patients were excluded due to low confidence scores. Twenty-seven patients underwent surgical repair (Group A) and 103 were managed entirely with percutaneous image-guided drainage (Group B). There was no significant difference in patient demographics or number of hospital admissions. Patients in Group A had longer median hospital stays compared to Group B (48 vs. 32 days, p = 0.007). The median total hospitalization cost for Group A was more than twice that for Group B ($99,995 vs. $47,838, p = 0.001). Differences in hospital disposition, number of CT examinations, number of drains, and time between original surgery and first CT examination were statistically significant.

Conclusion

Gastrointestinal anastomotic leaks managed by percutaneous drainage are associated with lower hospital cost and shorter hospital stays compared with surgical management.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Men S, Akhan O, Koroglu M (2002) Percutaneous drainage of abdominal abscess. Eur J Radiol 43(3):204–218

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hemming A, Davis NL, Robins RE (1991) Surgical versus percutaneous drainage of intra-abdominal abscesses. Am J Surg 161(5):593–595

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Mueller PR, vanSonnenberg E, Ferrucci JT Jr (1984) Percutaneous drainage of 250 abdominal abscesses and fluid collections. Part II: Current procedural concepts. Radiology 151(2):343–347

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. vanSonnenberg E, Mueller PR, Ferrucci JT Jr (1984) Percutaneous drainage of 250 abdominal abscesses and fluid collections. Part I: Results, failures, and complications. Radiology 151(2):337–341

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. vanSonnenberg E, Wing VW, Casola G, et al. (1984) Temporizing effect of percutaneous drainage of complicated abscesses in critically ill patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 142(4):821–826

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Schechter S, Eisenstat TE, Oliver GC, Rubin RJ, Salvati EP (1994) Computerized tomographic scan-guided drainage of intra-abdominal abscesses. Preoperative and postoperative modalities in colon and rectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 37(10):984–988

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bufalari A, Giustozzi G, Moggi L (1996) Postoperative intraabdominal abscesses: percutaneous versus surgical treatment. Acta Chir Belg 96(5):197–200

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Olak J, Christou NV, Stein LA, Casola G, Meakins JL (1986) Operative vs percutaneous drainage of intra-abdominal abscesses. Comparison of morbidity and mortality. Arch Surg 121(2):141–146

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lopez N, Kobayashi L, Coimbra R (2011) A Comprehensive review of abdominal infections. World J Emerg Surg 6:7

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Alves A, Panis Y, Pocard M, Regimbeau JM, Valleur P (1999) Management of anastomotic leakage after nondiverted large bowel resection. J Am Coll Surg 189(6):554–559

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Reinke C, Showalter S, Mahmoud N, Kelz R (2013) Comparison of anastomotic leak rate after colorectal surgery using different databases. Dis Colon Rectum 56(5):638–644

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kang C, Chaudhry O, Halabi W, et al. (2012) Outcomes of laparoscopic colorectal surgery: data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample 2009. Am J Surg 204(6):952–957

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Price T, Nichols F, Harmsen W, et al. (2013) A comprehensive review of anastomotic technique in 432 esophagectomies. Ann Thorac Surg 95(4):1154–1160

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Cafarotti S, Cesario A, Proziella V, et al. (2013) Post-esophagectomy anastomotic leaks: the role of the anastomotic location. Ann Ital Chir 84:137–141

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Sajid M, Craciunas L, Baig M, Sains P (2013) Systematic review and meta-analysis of published, randomized, controlled trials comparing suture anastomosis to stapled anastomosis for ileostomy closure. Tech Coloproctol 17(6):631–639

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. El-Hussana A, Lauritsen M, Bulow S (2012) Relatively high incidence of complications after loop ileostomy reversal. Dan Med J 59(10):4517

    Google Scholar 

  17. Loffler T, Rossion I, Bruckner T, et al. (2012) HAnd Suture Versus STApling for Closure of Loop Ileostomy (HASTA Trial): results of a multicenter randomized trial (DRKS00000040). Ann Surg 256(5):828–836

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Fleshman JW, Wolff BG (2007) The ASCRS textbook of colon and rectal surgery. New York: Springer

    Google Scholar 

  19. Levison MA, Zeigler D (1991) Correlation of APACHE II score, drainage technique and outcome in postoperative intra-abdominal abscess. Surg Gynecol Obstet 172(2):89–94

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Gayer G, Jonas T, Apter S, et al. (2000) Postoperative pneumoperitoneum as detected by CT: prevalence, duration, and relevant factors affecting its possible significance. Abdom Imaging 25:301–305

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Cassivi SD (2004) Leaks, strictures, and necrosis: a review of anastomotic complications following esophagectomy. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 16(2):124–132

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Tien Y, Lee P, Yang C, Ho M, Chiu Y (2005) Risk factors of massive bleeding related to pancreatic leak after pancreaticoduodenectomy. J Am Coll Surg 201(4):554–559

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Mezhir J (2013) Management of complications following pancreatic resection: an evidence-based approach. J Surg Oncol 107(1):58–66

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Gouma D, van Geenen R, van Gulik T, et al. (2000) Rates of complications and death after pancreaticoduodenectomy: risk factors and the impact of hospital volume. Ann Surg 232(6):786–795

    PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Böttger T, Junginger T (1999) Factors influencing morbidity and mortality after pancreaticoduodenectomy: critical analysis of 221 resections. World J Surg 23(2):164–171

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Platell C, Barwood N, Dorfmann G, Makin G (2007) The incidence of anastomotic leaks in patients undergoing colorectal surgery. Colorectal Dis 9(1):71–79

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Parc Y, Frileux P, Schmitt G, et al. (2000) Management of postoperative peritonitis after anterior resection: experience from a referral intensive care unit. Dis Colon Rectum 43(5):579–587

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Sirois-Giguère E, Boulanger-Gobeil C, Bouchard A, et al. (2013) Transanal drainage to treat anastomotic leaks after low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a valuable option. Dis Colon Rectum 56(5):586–592

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Frye J, Bokey E, Chapuis P, Sinclair G, Dent O (2009) Anastomotic leakage after resection of colorectal cancer generates prodigious use of hospital resources. Colorectal Dis 11(9):917–920

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Koperna T, Schulz F (2000) Relaparotomy in peritonitis: prognosis and treatment of patients with persisting intraabdominal infection. World J Surg 24(1):32–37

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Hutchins R, Gunning M, Lucas D, Allen-Mersh T, Soni N (2004) Relaparotomy for suspected intraperitoneal sepsis after abdominal surgery. World J Surg 28(2):137–141

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Thornton M, Joshi H, Vimalachandran C, et al. (2011) Management and outcome of colorectal anastomotic leaks. Int J Colorectal Dis 26(3):313–320

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Blumetti J, Chaudhry V, Cintron J, et al. (2013) Management of anastomotic leak: lessons learned from a large colon and rectal surgery training program. World J Surg. doi:10.1007/s00268-013-2340-y

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, 27710, USA

    Lauren M. B. Burke, Mustafa R. Bashir, Carly S. Gardner, Arthur A. Parsee, Daniele Marin, David Vermess & Tracy A. Jaffe

  2. Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, 27710, USA

    Syamal D. Bhattacharya & Julie K. Thacker

  3. UNC School of Medicine, 101 Manning Dr, Chapel Hill, NC, 27514, USA

    Lauren M. B. Burke

Authors
  1. Lauren M. B. Burke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mustafa R. Bashir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Carly S. Gardner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Arthur A. Parsee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Daniele Marin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. David Vermess
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Syamal D. Bhattacharya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Julie K. Thacker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Tracy A. Jaffe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lauren M. B. Burke.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Burke, L.M.B., Bashir, M.R., Gardner, C.S. et al. Image-guided percutaneous drainage vs. surgical repair of gastrointestinal anastomotic leaks: is there a difference in hospital course or hospitalization cost?. Abdom Imaging 40, 1279–1284 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-014-0265-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-014-0265-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation