International Journal of Colorectal Disease

, Volume 21, Issue 7, pp 657–660 | Cite as

Treatment of anastomotic leakage after rectal resection with transrectal vacuum-assisted drainage (VAC)

A method for rapid control of pelvic sepsis and healing
  • Carl Frederik NagellEmail author
  • Kathrine Holte
Original Article



Anastomotic leakage after rectal resection is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Patients without peritonitis can be treated conservatively by transrectal rinsing and drainage. However, healing is often very slow, and formation of abundant scar tissue resulting in a poor functional result is not uncommon. Vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) has been shown to accelerate wound healing by increasing local blood flow, reducing bacterial load and stimulating growth of granulation tissue. In this paper, we describe VAC as a method for treating anastomotic leakage after rectal resection.


Four patients with anastomotic leakage after rectal resections were treated with VAC.


Healing time for these patients was median 51 days (43–195). The control group consisted of patients treated conservatively in the previous 5-year period. Ten patients were identified with median healing time 336 days (52–1434).


VAC treatment may possibly shorten healing time of anastomotic leakages after rectal resection. However, the presented results are preliminary, with only few patients included, and obviously, larger, randomized, clinical trials are needed to confirm these results and establish the indication for VAC treatment in clinical practice. We believe VAC therapy is a promising treatment of anastomotic leakage after rectal resection.


Anastomotic leakage VAC Rectal Healing 


  1. 1.
    Rullier E et al (1998) Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after resection of rectal cancer. Br J Surg 85:355–358PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Averbach AM, Chang D, Koslowe P, Sugarbaker PH (1996) Anastomotic leak after double-stapled low colorectal resection. Dis Colon Rectum 39:780–787PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Keighley MRB, Williams NS (eds) (1993) Surgery of the anus, rectum and colon. Saunders, Philadelphia, pp 1024–1026Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Argenta LC, Morykwas MJ (1997) Vacuum-assisted closure: a new method for wound control and treatment: clinical experience. Ann Plast Surg 38:563–576PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Morykwas MJ, Argenta LC, Shelton-Brown EI, McGuirt W (1997) Vacuum-assisted closure: a new method for wound control and treatment: animal studies and basic foundation. Ann Plast Surg 38:553–562PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schaffzin DM, Douglas JM, Stahl TJ, Smith LE (2004) Vacuum-assisted closure of complex perineal wounds. Dis Colon Rectum 47:1745–1748PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fleck TM et al (2002) The vacuum-assisted closure system for the treatment of deep sternal wound infections after cardiac surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 74:1596–1600PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eginton MT, Brown KR, Seabrook GR, Towne JB, Cambria RA (2003) A prospective randomized evaluation of negative-pressure wound dressings for diabetic foot wounds. Ann Vasc Surg 17:645–649PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Argenta PA, Rahaman J, Gretz HF III, Nezhat F, Cohen CJ (2002) Vacuum-assisted closure in the treatment of complex gynecologic wound failures. Obstet Gynecol 99:497–501PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cro C, George KJ, Donnelly J, Irwin ST, Gardiner KR (2002) Vacuum assisted closure system in the management of enterocutaneous fistulae. Postgrad Med J 78:364–365PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wiedenhagen R, Spelsberg F, Lang RA, Jach KW, Gruetzner KUA (2003) New method for sepsis control caused by anastomotic leakage in rectal surgery—the endo-VAC. Colorectal Dis 5(Suppl 2):1–4Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Surgical GastroenterologyHvidovre University HospitalHvidovreDenmark

Personalised recommendations