Skip to main content

Utility of contrast enema to assess anastomotic integrity and the natural history of radiological leaks after low rectal surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis

International Journal of Colorectal Disease volume 30, pages 1007–1014 (2015)Cite this article

Abstract

Purpose

There is no clear consensus on how to assess low rectal anastomotic integrity and patency prior to reversal of de-functioning stoma. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the utility of contrast enema (CE) in this context and to clarify the natural history of radiological leaks.

Methods

Keyword search of electronic databases (Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar) and bibliographic cross-referencing were performed to identify appropriate studies. Data extraction and synthesis was performed with the primary outcomes being the sensitivity and specificity of CE for detecting clinically significant abnormalities. Statistical analysis was performed using Open Meta-Analyst software. Narrative review of outcomes including those of clinical and radiological leaks was also undertaken.

Results

A total of 1,142 CE from 11 articles were included in the final meta-analysis. CE had high specificity (95.4; 95 % confidence interval = 92.0–97.4) and negative predictive value (98.4; 97.4–99.1) and moderate sensitivity (79.9; 63.9–89.9) and positive predictive value (64.6; 55.5–72.9) for the detection of clinically significant anastomotic problems. There was a high degree of correlation between CE and clinical examination findings (96.7 %). Occult radiological leaks were seen in 5.7 % of CE, and all but one (97 %) eventually underwent successful reversal. Only three quarters of patients with clinical leak underwent successful reversal.

Conclusion

CE is effective at excluding clinically significant anastomotic problems, especially after clinical anastomotic leaks. However, false positive results can be observed in asymptomatic patients, and it is unclear how much additional information CE provides over clinical assessment in the low uncomplicated anastomosis.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  1. Karanjia ND, Corder AP, Bearn P, Heald RJ (1994) Leakage from stapled low anastomosis after total mesorectal excision for carcinoma of the rectum. Br J Surg 81(8):1224–1226, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7953369

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Phillips BR, Harris LJ, Maxwell PJ, Isenberg GA, Goldstein SD (2010) Anastomotic leak rate after low anterior resection for rectal cancer after chemoradiation therapy. Am Surg 76(8):869–871, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20726419

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Lim M, Akhtar S, Sasapu K, Harris K, Burke D, Sagar P, Finan P (2006) Clinical and subclinical leaks after low colorectal anastomosis: a clinical and radiologic study. Dis Colon Rectum 49(10):1611–1619. doi:10.1007/s10350-006-0663-6

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Makela JT, Kiviniemi H, Laitinen S (2003) Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after left-sided colorectal resection with rectal anastomosis. Dis Colon Rectum 46(5):653–660. doi:10.1097/01.DCR.0000059328.10563.8C

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Hong SY, Kim do Y, Oh SY, Suh KW (2012) Routine barium enema prior to closure of defunctioning ileostomy is not necessary. J Korean Surg Soc 83(2):88–91. doi:10.4174/jkss.2012.83.2.88

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kalady MF, Mantyh CR, Petrofski J, Ludwig KA (2008) Routine contrast imaging of low pelvic anastomosis prior to closure of defunctioning ileostomy: is it necessary? J Gastrointest Surg Off J Soc Surg Aliment Tract 12(7):1227–1231. doi:10.1007/s11605-008-0510-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Karsten BJ, King JB, Kumar RR (2009) Role of water-soluble enema before takedown of diverting ileostomy for low pelvic anastomosis. Am Surg 75(10):941–944, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19886140

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Khair G, Alhamarneh O, Avery J, Cast J, Gunn J, Monson JR, Hartley J (2007) Routine use of gastrograffin enema prior to the reversal of a loop ileostomy. Dig Surg 24(5):338–341. doi:10.1159/000107713

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Cowan T, Hill AG (2005) Ileostomy closure without contrast study is safe in selected patients. ANZ J Surg 75(4):218–219. doi:10.1111/j.1445-2197.2005.03369.x

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Wallace BC, Schmid CH, Lau J, Trikalinos TA (2009) Meta-analyst: software for meta-analysis of binary, continuous and diagnostic data. BMC Med Res Methodol 9:80. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-9-80

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. DerSimonian R, Laird N (1986) Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 7(3):177–188, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3802833

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Killeen S, Souroullas P, Ho Tin H, Hunter IA, O’Grady H, Gunn J, Hartley JE (2013) Outcomes of asymptomatic anastomotic leaks found on routine postoperative water-soluble enema following anterior resection for cancer. World J Surg 37(11):2700–2704. doi:10.1007/s00268-013-2193-4

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Shorthouse AJ, Bartram CI, Eyers AA, Thomson JP (1982) The water soluble contrast enema after rectal anastomosis. Br J Surg 69(12):714–717, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7171972

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lee MR, Lee MJ, Kim JH, Hwang Y (2006) Is barium enema prior to ileostomy closure necessary? J Korean Soc Coloproctology 22:298–300

    Google Scholar 

  15. Tang CL, Seow-Choen F (2005) Digital rectal examination compares favourably with conventional water-soluble contrast enema in the assessment of anastomotic healing after low rectal excision: a cohort study. Int J Color Dis 20(3):262–266. doi:10.1007/s00384-004-0652-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. da Silva GM, Wexner SD, Gurland B, Gervaz P, Moon SD, Efron J, Nogueras JJ, Weiss EG, Vernava AM, Zmora O (2004) Is routine pouchogram prior to ileostomy closure in colonic J-pouch really necessary? Colorectal disease. Off J Assoc Coloproctology Great Brit Irel 6(2):117–120, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15008910

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. MacLeod I, Watson AJ, Hampton J, Hussey JK, O’Kelly TJ (2004) Colonic pouchography is not routinely required prior to stoma closure. Color Dis Off J Assoc Coloproctology Great Brit Irel 6(3):162–164. doi:10.1111/j.1463-1318.2004.00626.x

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Morris E, Quirke P, Thomas JD, Fairley L, Cottier B, Forman D (2008) Unacceptable variation in abdominoperineal excision rates for rectal cancer: time to intervene? Gut 57(12):1690–1697. doi:10.1136/gut.2007.137877

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Codd RJ, Evans MD, Davies M, Harris DA, Chandrasekaran TV, Khot UP, Morgan AR, Beynon J (2014) Permanent stoma rates: a misleading marker of quality in rectal cancer surgery. Colorectal disease : Off J Assoc Coloproctology Great Brit Irel 16(4):276–280. doi:10.1111/codi.12509

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Nabi H, Morgan M, Ooi K, Turner C, Kozman D (2013) The routine use of contrast enemas performed prior to the reversal of loop ileostomies does affect management. World J Colorectal Surg 3(4)

  21. Palmisano S, Piccinni G, Casagranda B, Balani A, de Manzini N (2011) The reversal of a protective stoma is feasible before the complete healing of a colorectal anastomotic leak. Am Surg 77(12):1619–1623, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22273219

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of General & Gastrointestinal Surgery, Doncaster and Bassetlaw Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Doncaster, UK

    K. Habib, A. Gupta, Fayyaz A. K. Mazari & T. R. Wilson

  2. Department of Radiology, Doncaster and Bassetlaw Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Doncaster, UK

    D. White

  3. Department of General Surgery, Doncaster Royal Infirmary, Armthorpe Road, Doncaster, DN2 5LT, UK

    Fayyaz A. K. Mazari

Authors
  1. K. Habib
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. Gupta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. D. White
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Fayyaz A. K. Mazari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. T. R. Wilson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fayyaz A. K. Mazari.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Fig. 5
figure 5

This forest plot represents the cumulative sensitivity of contrast enema for detecting clinically significant anastomotic leak. Size of the solid boxes represents weight of each individual study and the bars represent 95 % confidence interval. The blue diamond at the bottom of the plot on the left represents cumulative sensitivity with the edges of the diamond representing 95 % confidence interval. Estimates and plot on the right represents contribution of individual studies to the cumulative sensitivity estimate. CI—Confidence interval, TP—True positive, FN—False negative. (GIF 3 kb)

Full size image
Supplementary Fig. 6
figure 6

This forest plot represents the cumulative specificity of contrast enema for detecting clinically significant anastomotic leak. Size of the solid boxes represents weight of each individual study and the bars represent 95 % confidence interval. The blue diamond at the bottom of the plot on the left represents cumulative specificity with the edges of the diamond representing 95 % confidence interval. Estimates and plot on the right represents contribution of individual studies to the cumulative specificity estimate. CI—Confidence interval, TN—True negative, FP—False positive. (GIF 3 kb)

Full size image
Supplementary Fig. 7
figure 7

This forest plot represents the cumulative sensitivity of contrast enema for detecting clinically significant anastomotic stricture. Size of the solid boxes represents weight of each individual study and the bars represent 95 % confidence interval. The blue diamond at the bottom of the plot on the left represents cumulative sensitivity with the edges of the diamond representing 95 % confidence interval. Estimates and plot on the right represents contribution of individual studies to the cumulative sensitivity estimate. CI—Confidence interval, TP—True positive, FN—False negative. (GIF 3 kb)

Full size image
Supplementary Fig. 8
figure 8

This forest plot represents the cumulative specificity of contrast enema for detecting clinically significant anastomotic stricture. Size of the solid boxes represents weight of each individual study and the bars represent 95 % confidence interval. The blue diamond at the bottom of the plot on the left represents cumulative specificity with the edges of the diamond representing 95 % confidence interval. Estimates and plot on the right represents contribution of individual studies to the cumulative specificity estimate. CI—Confidence interval, TN—True negative, FP—False positive. (GIF 3 kb)

Full size image

High resolution image (TIFF 6,003 kb)

High resolution image (TIFF 6,043 kb)

High resolution image (TIFF 5,978 kb)

High resolution image (TIFF 6,029 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Habib, K., Gupta, A., White, D. et al. Utility of contrast enema to assess anastomotic integrity and the natural history of radiological leaks after low rectal surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis 30, 1007–1014 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-015-2225-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-015-2225-7

Keywords

  • Low anterior resection
  • Ileostomy
  • Contrast enema
  • Anastomotic leak