Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Surgical outcomes of Turnbull-Cutait delayed coloanal anastomosis with pull-through versus immediate coloanal anastomosis with diverting stoma after total mesorectal excision for low rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Review
  • Published:
Techniques in Coloproctology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Theoretical advantages of Turnbull-Cutait pull-through delayed coloanal anastomosis (DCAA) are a reduced risk of anastomotic leak and therefore avoidance of stoma. Gradually abandoned in favor of immediate coloanal anastomosis (ICAA) with diverting stoma, DCAA has regained popularity in recent years in reconstructive surgery for low RC, especially when combined with minimally invasive surgery (MIS). The aim of this study was to perform the first meta-analysis, exploring the safety and outcomes of DCAA compared to ICAA with protective stoma.

Methods

A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL and Google Scholar databases was performed for studies published from January 2000 until December 2020. The systematic review and meta-analysis were performed according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Review on Interventions recommendations and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines.

Results

Out of 2626 studies screened, 9 were included in the systematic review and 4 studies in the meta-analysis. Outcomes included were postoperative complications, pelvic sepsis and risk of definitive stoma. Considering postoperative complications classified as Clavien–Dindo III, no significant difference existed in the rate of postoperative morbidity between DCAA and ICAA (13% versus 21%; OR 1.17; 95% CI 0.38–3.62; p = 0.78; I2 = 20%). Patients in the DCAA group experienced a lower rate of postoperative pelvic sepsis compared with patients undergoing ICAA with diverting stoma (7% versus 14%; OR 0.37; 95% CI 0.16–0.85; p = 0.02; I2 = 0%). The risk of definitive stoma was comparable between the two groups (2% versus 2% OR 0.77; 95% CI 0.15–3.85; p = 0.75; I2 = 0%).

Conclusions

According to the limited current evidence, DCAA is associated with a significant decrease in pelvic sepsis. Further prospective trials focusing on oncologic and functional outcomes are needed.

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
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of data and material

Not applicable.

Code availability

Not applicable.

References

  1. Rullier E, Denost Q, Vendrely V, Rullier A, Laurent C (2013) Low rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. https://doi.org/10.1097/DCR.0b013e31827c4a8c

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Eriksen MT, Wibe A, Norstein J, Haffner J, Wiig JN (2005) Anastomotic leakage following routine mesorectal excision for rectal cancer in a national cohort of patients. Colorectal Dis. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-1318.2004.00700.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bell SW et al (2003) Anastomotic leakage after curative anterior resection results in a higher prevalence of local recurrence. Br J Surg. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.4219

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hanna MH, Vinci A, Pigazzi A (2015) Diverting ileostomy in colorectal surgery: when is it necessary? Langenbeck’s Arch Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-015-1275-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Matthiessen P, Hallböök O, Rutegård J, Simert G, Sjödahl R (2007) Defunctioning stoma reduces symptomatic anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection of the rectum for cancer. Ann Surg. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e3180603024

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Pisarska M et al (2018) Defunctioning ileostomy reduces leakage rate in rectal cancer surgery—systematic review and meta-analysis. Oncotarget. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.25015

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Garg PK, Goel A, Sharma S, Chishi N, Gaur MK (2019) Protective diversion stoma in low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Visc Med. https://doi.org/10.1159/000497168

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Gessler B, Haglind E, Angenete E (2012) Loop ileostomies in colorectal cancer patients–morbidity and risk factors for nonreversal. J Surg Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2012.08.018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Sharma A, Deeb A-P, Rickles AS, Iannuzzi JC, Monson JRT, Fleming FJ (2013) Closure of defunctioning loop ileostomy is associated with considerable morbidity. Colorectal Dis. https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.12029

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Danielsen AK et al (2017) Early closure of a temporary ileostomy in patients with rectal cancer. Ann Surg. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000001829

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Man VCM, Choi HK, Law WL, Foo DCC (2016) Morbidities after closure of ileostomy: analysis of risk factors. Int J Colorectal Dis. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-015-2327-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Munakata S et al (2017) “Defunctioning loop ileostomy with restorative proctocolectomy for rectal cancer: friend or foe?” J Anus Rectum Colon. https://doi.org/10.23922/jarc.2017-023

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Murken D, Bleier J (2019) Ostomy-related complications. Clin Colon Rectal Surg. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1676995

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Nugent KP, Daniels P, Stewart B, Patankar R, Johnson CD (1999) Quality of life in stoma patients. Dis Colon Rectum. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02236209

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ayaz-Alkaya S (2019) Overview of psychosocial problems in individuals with stoma: a review of literature. Int Wound J. https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.13018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Turnbull RB, Cuthbertson A (1961) Abdominorectal pull-through resection for cancer and for hirschsprung’s disease: delayed posterior colorectal anastomosis. Clevel Clin J Med. https://doi.org/10.3949/ccjm.28.2.109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Cutait DE, Figliolini FJ (1961) A new method of colorectal anastomosis in abdominoperineal resection. Dis Colon Rectum. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02627230

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Knight CD, Griffen FD (1980) An improved technique for low anterior resection of the rectum using the EEA stapler. Surgery 88(5):710–714

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Parks AG (1972) Transanal technique in low rectal anasto. Proc R Soc Med 65(11):975–976

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Remzi FH, el Gazzaz G, Kiran RP, Kirat HT, Fazio VW (2009) Outcomes following Turnbull-Cutait abdominoperineal pull-through compared with coloanal anastomosis. Br J Surg. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.6458

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hallet J et al (2014) Anastomotic salvage after rectal cancer resection using the Turnbull-Cutait delayed anastomosis. Can J Surg. https://doi.org/10.1503/cjs.001014

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Patsouras D, Yassin NA, Phillips RKS (2014) Clinical outcomes of colo-anal pull-through procedure for complex rectal conditions. Colorectal Dis. https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.12532

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Fixot K, Galifet M, Scherrer M-L, Germain A, Bresler L (2014) Abdominoperineal pull-through resection with delayed coloanal anastomosis as treatment option for complex recto-urinary fistulas. Int J Colorectal Dis. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-013-1787-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Bianco F, Belli A, de Franciscis S, Falato A, Romano GM (2016) ‘Scarless’ and no-stoma surgery for low rectal cancer: the laparoscopic pull-through delayed ‘high’ colo-anal anastomosis. Updates Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-016-0358-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Sage P-Y, Trilling B, Waroquet P-A, Voirin D, Girard E, Faucheron J-L (2018) Laparoscopic delayed coloanal anastomosis without diverting ileostomy for low rectal cancer surgery: 85 consecutive patients from a single institution. Tech Coloproctol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-018-1813-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Jarry J, Faucheron JL, Moreno W, Bellera CA, Evrard S (2011) Delayed colo-anal anastomosis is an alternative to prophylactic diverting stoma after total mesorectal excision for middle and low rectal carcinomas. Eur J Surg Oncol (EJSO). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2010.12.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Olagne E et al (2000) Functional results of delayed coloanal anastomosis after preoperative radiotherapy for lower third rectal cancer11No competing interests declared. J Am Coll Surg. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1072-7515(00)00756-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Hallet J, Milot H, Drolet S, Desrosiers E, Grégoire RC, Bouchard A (2014) The clinical results of the Turnbull-Cutait delayed coloanal anastomosis: a systematic review. Tech Coloproctol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-014-1132-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Portale G, Popesc GO, Parotto M, Cavallin F (2019) Delayed colo-anal anastomosis for rectal cancer: pelvic morbidity, functional results and oncological outcomes: a systematic review. World J Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-019-04918-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.2 (updated February 2021)., vol. Cochrane. 2021. Accessed: May 19, 2021. [Online]. Available: from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook

  31. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P-A (2004) Classification of surgical complications. Ann Surg. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Review Manager (RevMan) (2014) The Nordic Cochrane Centre. The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen

    Google Scholar 

  34. Xiong Y, Huang P, Ren QG (2016) Transanal pull-through procedure with delayed versus immediate coloanal anastomosis for anus-preserving curative resection of lower rectal cancer: a case-control study. Am Surg 82(6):533–539

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Guner OS, Tumay LV (2021) <scp>Turnbull–Cutait</scp> technique without ileostomy after total mesorectal excision is associated with acceptably low early post-operative morbidity. ANZ J Surg. https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.16412

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Pujahari AK, Anand S (2015) Trans-anal exteriorisation of colon and delayed colo-anal anastomosis for sphincter preservation in low carcinoma rectum. Int J Colorectal Dis. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-014-2059-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. François M-O et al (2020) Delayed coloanal anastomosis: an alternative option for restorative rectal cancer surgery after high-dose pelvic radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Colorectal Dis. https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.15144

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Biondo S et al (2020) Two-stage turnbull-cutait pull-through coloanal anastomosis for low rectal cancer. JAMA Surg. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2020.1625

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Chow A, Tilney HS, Paraskeva P, Jeyarajah S, Zacharakis E, Purkayastha S (2009) The morbidity surrounding reversal of defunctioning ileostomies: a systematic review of 48 studies including 6107 cases. Int J Colorectal Dis. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-009-0660-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Celerier B, Denost Q, van Geluwe B, Pontallier A, Rullier E (2016) The risk of definitive stoma formation at 10 years after low and ultralow anterior resection for rectal cancer. Colorectal Dis. https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.13124

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Hoshino N et al (2018) Nomogram for predicting anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection for rectal cancer. Int J Colorectal Dis. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-018-2970-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Tekkis P et al (2015) Hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis for low rectal cancer: technique and long-term outcome. Colorectal Dis. https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.13028

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Martin ST, Heneghan HM, Winter DC (2012) Systematic review of outcomes after intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer. Br J Surg. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.8677

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Takahashi H et al (2018) The severity of anastomotic leakage may negatively impact the long-term prognosis of colorectal cancer. Anticancer Res. https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.12255

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Lange MM, van de Velde CJH (2008) Faecal and urinary incontinence after multimodality treatment of rectal cancer. PLoS Med. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050202

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, Milan, Italy

    C. La Raja, C. Foppa, M. Carvello & A. Spinelli

  2. Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, via Manzoni 56, 20089, Rozzano, Milan, Italy

    C. La Raja, C. Foppa, A. Maroli, N. Ben David, M. Carvello & A. Spinelli

  3. Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK

    C. Kontovounisios

  4. Department of Colorectal Surgery, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, London, UK

    C. Kontovounisios

  5. Department of Colorectal Surgery, Royal Marsden Hospital, London, UK

    C. Kontovounisios

Authors
  1. C. La Raja
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. C. Foppa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. Maroli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. C. Kontovounisios
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. N. Ben David
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. M. Carvello
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. A. Spinelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization: CLR, CF, AM and AS; methodology: CLR, AM, CF; formal analysis and investigation: CLR, AM, CF; writing—original draft preparation: CLR, AM, CF, NBD; writing—review and editing: MC, CK, AS; supervision: AS. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Spinelli.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

Not applicable.

Consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 29 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

La Raja, C., Foppa, C., Maroli, A. et al. Surgical outcomes of Turnbull-Cutait delayed coloanal anastomosis with pull-through versus immediate coloanal anastomosis with diverting stoma after total mesorectal excision for low rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Tech Coloproctol 26, 603–613 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-022-02601-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-022-02601-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation