Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection for rectal cancer: comparison of stapled versus compression anastomosis

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Surgical technique and perioperative management in rectal cancer surgery have been substantially improved and standardized during the last decades. However, anastomotic leakage following low anterior resection still is a significant problem. Based on animal experimental data of improved healing of compression anastomosis, we hypothesized that a compression anastomotic device might improve healing rates of the highest-risk anastomoses.

Methods

All low anterior resections for rectal cancer performed or directly supervised by the senior author between January 2004 and June 2012 were analyzed. Only patients with a stapled or compression anastomosis located within 6 cm from the anal verge were included. Until December 2008, circular staplers were employed, while since January 2009, a novel compression anastomotic device was used for rectal reconstruction exclusively.

Results

Out of 197 patients operated for rectal cancer, a total of 96 (34 females, 35.4 %) fulfilled inclusion criteria. Fifty-eight (60.4 %) were reconstructed with circular staplers and 38 (39.6 %) using a compression anastomotic device. Significantly, more laparoscopic procedures were recorded in the compression anastomosis group, but distribution of gender, age, body mass index, American Society of Anaesthesiologists score, rate of preoperative radiotherapy, tumor staging, or stoma diversion rate were similar. Anastomotic leakage was observed in seven cases (7/58, 12.1 %) in the stapled and twice (2/38, 5.3 %) in the compression anastomosis group (p = 0.26).

Conclusions

In this series, rectal reconstruction following low anterior resection using a novel compression anastomotic device was safe and (at least) equally effective compared to traditional circular staplers concerning leak rate.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Dahlberg M, Glimelius B, Pahlman L (1999) Changing strategy for rectal cancer is associated with improved outcome. Br J Surg 86:379–384

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Martling A, Holm T, Johansson H, Rutqvist LE, Cedermark B (2001) The Stockholm II trial on preoperative radiotherapy in rectal carcinoma: long-term follow-up of a population-based study. Cancer 92:896–902

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Heald RJ, Ryall RD (1986) Recurrence and survival after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Lancet 1:1479–1482

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Heald RJ, Husband EM, Ryall RD (1982) The mesorectum in rectal cancer surgery: the clue to pelvic recurrence? Br J Surg 69:613–616

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. 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 81:1224–1226

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Matthiessen P, Hallböök O, Andersson M, Rutegard J, Sjödahl R (2004) Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after anterior resection of the rectum. Colorectal Dis 6:462–469

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Rullier E, Laurent C, Garrelon JL, Michel P, Saric J, Parneix M (1998) Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after resection of rectal cancer. Br J Surg 85:355–358

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Jestin P, Pahlman L, Gunnarsson U (2008) Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer surgery: a case–control study. Colorectal Dis 10:715–721

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Kaidar-Person O, Rosenthal RJ, Wexner SD, Szomstein S, Person B (2008) Compression anastomosis: history and clinical considerations. Am J Surg 195:818–826

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ho YH, Ashour MA (2010) Techniques for colorectal anastomosis. World J Gastroenterol 16:1610–1621

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Zbar AP, Nir Y, Weizman A, Rabau M, Senagore A (2012) Compression anastomoses in colorectal surgery: a review. Tech Coloproct 16:187–199

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Dauser B, Herbst F (2009) NITI endoluminal compression anastomosis ring (NITI CAR27): a breakthrough in compression anastomoses? Eur Surg 41:116–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kopelman D, Lelcuk S, Sayfan J et al (2007) End-to-end compression anastomosis of the rectum: a pig model. World J Surg 31:532–537

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Stewart D, Hunt S, Pierce R et al (2007) Validation of the NITI Endoluminal Compression Anastomosis Ring (EndoCAR) device and comparison to the traditional circular stapled colorectal anastomosis in a porcine model. Surg Innov 14:252–260

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Rahbari NN, Weitz J, Hohenberger W et al (2010) Definition and grading of anastomotic leakage following anterior resection of the rectum: a proposal by the International Study Group of Rectal Cancer. Surgery 147:339–351

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lustosa SA, Matos D, Atallah AN, Castro AA (2001) Stapled versus hand-sewn methods for colorectal anastomosis surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev CD003144

  18. Carlsen E, Schlichting E, Guldvog I, Johnson E, Heald RJ (1998) Effect of the introduction of total mesorectal excision for the treatment of rectal cancer. Br J Surg 85:526–529

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Pahlman L, Bohe M, Cedermark B et al (2007) The Swedish rectal cancer registry. Br J Surg 94:1285–1292

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Hardy KJ (1990) Non-suture anastomosis: the historical development. Aus N Z J Surg 60:625–633

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Wullstein C, Gross E (2000) Compression anastomosis (AKA-2) in colorectal surgery: results in 442 consecutive patients. Br J Surg 87:1071–1075

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Chen TC, Yang MJ, Chang CP (1995) New anastomotic gun for biofragmentable anastomotic ring in low anterior resection. Dis Colon Rectum 38:1214–1216

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. D’Hoore A, Hompes D, Folkesson J, Penninckx F, Pahlman L (2008) Circular “superelastic” compression anastomosis: from the animal lab to clinical practice. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 17:172–175

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Tulchinsky H, Kashtan H, Rabau M, Wasserberg N (2010) Evaluation of the NiTi Shape Memory BioDynamix ColonRing™ in colorectal anastomosis: first in human multi-center study. Int J Colorect Dis 25:1453–1458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Dauser B, Winkler T, Loncsar G, Herbst F (2011) Compression anastomosis revisited: prospective audit of short- and medium-term outcomes in 62 rectal anastomoses. World J Surg 35:1925–1932

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Buchberg BS, Masoomi H, Bergman H, Mills SD, Stamos MJ (2011) The use of compression device as an alternative to hand-sewn and stapled colorectal anastomoses: is three a crowd? J Gastrointest Surg 15:304–310

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Lee JY, Woo JH, Choi HJ et al (2011) Early experience of the compression anastomosis ring (CAR™ 27) in left-sided colon resection. World J Gastroenterol 17:4787–4792

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kang J, Park MG, Hur H, Min BS, Lee KY, Kim NK (2012) Safety and efficacy of the NiTi shape memory compression anastomosis ring (CAR/ColonRing) for end-to-end compression anastomosis in anterior resection or low anterior resection. Surg Innov 20:164–170

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Avgoustou C, Penlidis P, Tsakpini A, Sioros C, Giannousis D (2012) Compression anastomoses in colon and rectal surgery with the NiTi ColonRing™. Tech Coloproct 16:29–35

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Koo EJ, Choi HJ, Woo JH et al (2012) Anastomosis by use of compression anastomosis ring (CAR™ 27) in laparoscopic surgery for left-sided colonic tumor. Int J Colorect Dis 27:391–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. D’Hoore A, Cohen C, Albert M, et al. (2012) COMPRES final results: nitinol compression anastomosis results in a much lower than expected rate of anastomotic leak in low anterior resection (LAR). Poster presented at the ASCRS Meeting; June 2–6, 2012; San Antonio, TX

  32. Masoomi H, Luo R, Mills S, Carmichale J, Senagore A, Stamos M (2013) Compression anastomosis ring device in colorectal anastomosis: a review of 1,180 patients. Am J Surg 205:447–451

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Kang CY, Halabi WJ, Chaudhry OO et al (2013) Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after anterior resection for rectal cancer. JAMA 148:65–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Matthiessen P, Hallböök O, Rutegard J, Simert G, Sjödahl R (2007) Defunctioning stoma reduces symptomatic anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection of the rectum for cancer: a randomized multicenter trial. Ann Surg 246:207–214

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Floodeen H, Hallböök O, Rutegard J, Sjödahl R, Matthiessen P (2012) Early and late symptomatic anastomotic leakage following low anterior resection of the rectum for cancer: are they different entities? Colorectal Dis 15:334–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Schmidt O, Merkel S, Hohenberger W (2003) Anastomotic leakage after low rectal stapler anastomosis: significance of intraoperative anastomotic testing. Eur J Surg Oncol 29:239–243

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Breukink S, Pierie J, Wiggers T (2006) Laparoscopic versus open total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev CD005200

Download references

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, St John of God Hospital, Johannes von Gott Platz 1, 1020, Vienna, Austria

    Bernhard Dauser, Tamara Braunschmid, Shahbaz Ghaffari & Friedrich Herbst

  2. Department of Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

    Stefan Riss & Anton Stift

Authors
  1. Bernhard Dauser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tamara Braunschmid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shahbaz Ghaffari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stefan Riss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Anton Stift
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Friedrich Herbst
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Friedrich Herbst.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dauser, B., Braunschmid, T., Ghaffari, S. et al. Anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection for rectal cancer: comparison of stapled versus compression anastomosis. Langenbecks Arch Surg 398, 957–964 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-013-1103-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-013-1103-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation