Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A standardized use of intraoperative anastomotic testing in colorectal surgery in the new millennium: is technology taking over? A systematic review and network meta-analysis

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Techniques in Coloproctology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Anastomotic leakage (AL) remains the most challenging complication following colorectal resection. There are several tests that can be used to test anastomotic integrity intraoperatively including air leak testing (ALT) and intraoperative colonoscopy (IOC). Indocyanine green (ICG) can be used to visualise blood supply to the bowel used in the anastomosis. However, there is no consensus internationally regarding routine use and which technique is superior. The aim of this study was to determine which intraoperative anastomotoic leak test (IALT) was most effective in reducing AL.

Methods

A systematic review and network meta-analysis were performed. An electronic systematic search was performed using Pubmed, CENTRAL, and Web of Science, of studies comparing ALT, IOC, and ICG. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (a) patients must have had colorectal surgery with formation of an anastomosis; (b) studies must have compared one or more IALTs; (c) and studies must have clear research methodology.

Results

Eleven articles totalling 3844 patients met the inclusion criteria and were included in this meta-analysis. Point estimation showed that the AL rate in the control group (no IALT) was significantly higher when compared to the ICG group (RR 0.44; Crl 0.14–0.87) and higher, but without reaching statistical significance, when compared to ALT (RR 0.53; Crl 0.21–1.30) and IOC (RR 0.49; Crl 0.10–1.80). Indirect comparison showed that the AL rate in the ICG group was lower, when compared to both ALT (RR 0.44; Crl 0.14–0.87) and IOC (RR 0.44; Crl 0.14–0.87).

Conclusions

This study suggests that intraoperative testing for a good blood supply using ICG may reduce the AL rate following colorectal surgery.

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. McDermott FD, Heeney A, Kelly ME, Steele RJ, Carlson GL, Winter DC (2015) Systematic review of preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative risk factors for colorectal anastomotic leaks. Br J Surg 102:462–479

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Lazorthes F, Chiotassol P (1986) Stapled colorectal anastomoses: peroperative integrity of the anastomosis and risk of postoperative leakage. Int J Colorectal Dis 1:96–98

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ris F, Liot E, Buchs NC, Kraus R, Ismael G, Belfontali V et al (2018) Multicentre phase II trial of near-infrared imaging in elective colorectal surgery. Br J Surg 105:1359–1367

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Cahill RA, Ris F, Mortensen NJ (2011) Near-infrared laparoscopy for real-time intra-operative arterial and lymphatic perfusion imaging. Colorectal Dis 13(Suppl 7):12–17

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Blanco-Colino R, Espin-Basany E (2018) Intraoperative use of ICG fluorescence imaging to reduce the risk of anastomotic leakage in colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Tech Coloproctol 22:15–23

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP et al (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 339:b2700

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Goossen K, Tenckhoff S, Probst P, Grummich K, Mihaljevic AL, Buchler MW et al (2018) Optimal literature search for systematic reviews in surgery. Langenbecks Arch Surg 403:119–129

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D et al (2000) Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 283:2008–2012

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Sterne JA, Hernan MA, Reeves BC, Savovic J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M et al (2016) ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 355:i4919

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Juni P, Moher D, Oxman AD et al (2011) The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 343:d5928

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Rahbari NN, Weitz J, Hohenberger W, Heald RJ, Moran B, Ulrich A 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 

  12. Allaix ME, Lena A, Degiuli M, Arezzo A, Passera R, Mistrangelo M et al (2019) Intraoperative air leak test reduces the rate of postoperative anastomotic leak: analysis of 777 laparoscopic left-sided colon resections. Surg Endosc 33(5):1592–1599. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6421-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Ivanov D, Cvijanovic R, Gvozdenovic L (2011) Intraoperative air testing of colorectal anastomoses. Srp Arh Celok Lek 139:333–338

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ricciardi R, Roberts PL, Marcello PW, Hall JF, Read TE, Schoetz DJ (2009) Anastomotic leak testing after colorectal resection: what are the data? Arch Surg 144:407–411 (discussion 11–2)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Boni L, Fingerhut A, Marzorati A, Rausei S, Dionigi G, Cassinotti E (2017) Indocyanine green fluorescence angiography during laparoscopic low anterior resection: results of a case-matched study. Surg Endosc 31:1836–1840

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kim JC, Lee JL, Yoon YS, Alotaibi AM, Kim J (2016) Utility of indocyanine-green fluorescent imaging during robot-assisted sphincter-saving surgery on rectal cancer patients. Int J Med Robot 12:710–717

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kin C, Vo H, Welton L, Welton M (2015) Equivocal effect of intraoperative fluorescence angiography on colorectal anastomotic leaks. Dis Colon Rectum 58:582–587

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Jafari MD, Lee KH, Halabi WJ, Mills SD, Carmichael JC, Stamos MJ et al (2013) The use of indocyanine green fluorescence to assess anastomotic perfusion during robotic assisted laparoscopic rectal surgery. Surg Endosc 27:3003–3008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Li VK, Wexner SD, Pulido N, Wang H, Jin HY, Weiss EG et al (2009) Use of routine intraoperative endoscopy in elective laparoscopic colorectal surgery: can it further avoid anastomotic failure? Surg Endosc 23:2459–2465

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lanthaler M, Biebl M, Mittermair R, Ofner D, Nehoda H (2008) Intraoperative colonoscopy for anastomosis assessment in laparoscopically assisted left-sided colon resection: is it worthwhile? J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 18:27–31

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Shamiyeh A, Szabo K, Ulf Wayand W, Zehetner J (2012) Intraoperative endoscopy for the assessment of circular-stapled anastomosis in laparoscopic colon surgery. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 22:65–67

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kudszus S, Roesel C, Schachtrupp A, Hoer JJ (2010) Intraoperative laser fluorescence angiography in colorectal surgery: a noninvasive analysis to reduce the rate of anastomotic leakage. Langenbecks Arch Surg 395:1025–1030

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Mills EJ, Thorlund K, Ioannidis JP (2013) Demystifying trial networks and network meta-analysis. BMJ 346:f2914

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Dias S, Sutton AJ, Ades AE et al (2013) Evidence synthesis for decision making 2: a generalized linear modeling framework for pairwise and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Med Decis Making 33:607–617

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ et al (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327:557–560

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Dias S, Welton NJ, Caldwell DM et al (2010) Checking consistency in mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. Stat Med 29:932–944

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Plummer M (2013) JAGS: a program for analysis of bayesian graphical models using gibbs sampling. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on distributed statistical computing, 20–22 March 2003, Vienna, Austria

  28. R Core Team (2015) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/. Accessed 5 Apr 2018

  29. Shrier I, Boivin JF, Steele RJ, Platt RW, Furlan A, Kakuma R et al (2007) Should meta-analyses of interventions include observational studies in addition to randomized controlled trials? A critical examination of underlying principles. Am J Epidemiol 166:1203–1209

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Salanti G, Del Giovane C, Chaimani A, Caldwell DM, Higgins JP (2014) Evaluating the quality of evidence from a network meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 9:e99682

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was not supported.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Surgical Oncology Unit, Treviglio Hospital, Piazzale Ospedale 1, 24047, Treviglio, Bergamo, Italy

    E. Rausa, L. Turati, A. Russo, G. Bonitta & L. G. Sgroi

  2. Division of General Surgery, Fatebenefratelli Hospital, Milan, Italy

    M. A. Zappa

  3. Department of Colorectal Surgery, St James Hospital, Dublin, Ireland

    M. E. Kelly

  4. Department of Biomedical Science for Health, Division of General Surgery, Istitituto Clinico Sant’Ambrogio, University of Milan, Milan, Italy

    A. Aiolfi

Authors
  1. E. Rausa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. A. Zappa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. E. Kelly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. L. Turati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. A. Russo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. A. Aiolfi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. G. Bonitta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. L. G. Sgroi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E. Rausa.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

Not applicable.

Informed consent

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rausa, E., Zappa, M.A., Kelly, M.E. et al. A standardized use of intraoperative anastomotic testing in colorectal surgery in the new millennium: is technology taking over? A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Tech Coloproctol 23, 625–631 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-019-02034-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-019-02034-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation