Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Anastomotic Leaks: What is the Best Diagnostic Imaging Study?

  • Published:
Diseases of the Colon & Rectum

Purpose

Postoperative anastomotic leaks are one of the most devastating consequences of colorectal surgery. Diagnostic imaging for upper gastrointestinal anastomotic leaks has been evaluated and reported on extensively. No study has compared the utility and effectiveness of CT scans and water-soluble enemas for the identification of postoperative lower gastrointestinal anastomotic leaks. The present study was designed to evaluate and compare these two common radiographic imaging modalities in detecting lower gastrointestinal anastomotic leaks.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was performed that identified 36 patients during a seven-year period who underwent reoperative surgery for a lower gastrointestinal anastomotic leak. Patient’s imaging studies were classified as positive if extravasation of contrast material was demonstrated. When negative, a study was retrospectively reviewed in an attempt to identify findings suggestive of an anastomotic leak.

Results

There were 36 patients identified with a postoperative lower gastrointestinal leak requiring surgical intervention. There were 28 of 36 patients (78 percent) re-explored on the basis of a radiologic study demonstrating an anastomotic leak. A total of 27 CT scans were performed, of which 4 (14.8 percent) were considered positive for an anastomotic leak. On review of the remaining negative CT scans, nine (33.3 percent) were considered descriptive positive with a large amount of fluid or air in the peritoneal cavity but without obvious extravasation of contrast. Eighteen patients were evaluated with a water-soluble enema and 15 (83.3 percent) demonstrated extravasation of contrast material. In the 26 patients with a distal anastomotic leak, 17 water-soluble enemas were performed, with 15 (88 percent) demonstrating a leak. In contrast, only 2 of 17 (12 percent) CT scans were positive in this group of patients (P < 0.001). There were ten patients who initially had a CT scan followed by a water-soluble enema. Of these patients, eight of nine (88 percent) initially had a negative CT scan but were considered to be clinically suspicious of having an anastomotic leak and subsequently had a leak demonstrated on a water-soluble enema.

Conclusions

Early intervention in patients who develop an anastomotic leak can be shown to improve the ultimate outcome, especially with respect to mortality. It is usually necessary to obtain objective tests of anastomotic integrity because of the nonspecificity of clinical signs. Our study supported the superiority of water-soluble enema to CT imaging in patients in whom both modalities were used. This difference was most pronounced for distal anastomotic leaks, whereas no radiologic imaging study proved effective in evaluating proximal anastomoses.

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

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. JT Makela H Kiviniemi S Laitinen (2003) ArticleTitleRisk factors for anastomotic leakage after leftsided colorectal resection with rectal anastomosis Dis Colon Rectum 46 653–660 Occurrence Handle12792443 Occurrence Handle10.1007/s10350-004-6627-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. O Schmidt S Merkel W Hohenberger (2003) ArticleTitleAnastomotic leakage after low rectal stapler anastomosis: significance of intraoperative anastomotic testing Eur Surg Oncol 29 239–243 Occurrence Handle10.1053/ejso.2002.1416 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3s7kt1agtw%3D%3D

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. A Vignali L Gianotti M Braga G Radaelli L Malvezzi V Carlo (2000) ArticleTitleAltered microperfusion at the rectal stump is predictive for rectal anastomotic leak Dis Colon Rectum 43 76–82 Occurrence Handle10813128 Occurrence Handle10.1007/BF02237248 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3c3ntFagtA%3D%3D

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. A Alves Y Panis M Pocard JM Regimbeau P Valleur (1999) ArticleTitleManagement of anastomotic leakage after nondiverting large bowel resection J Am Coll Surg 189 554–559 Occurrence Handle10589591 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S1072-7515(99)00207-0 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3c%2FlsFGjug%3D%3D

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. J Pickleman W Watson J Cunningham SG Fisher R Geamelli (1999) ArticleTitleThe failed gastrointestinal anastomosis: an inevitable catastrophe? J Am Coll Surg 188 473–482 Occurrence Handle10235574 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S1072-7515(99)00028-9 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK1M3kvFKmsQ%3D%3D

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. CB Whitlow FG Opelka JB Gathright DE Beck (1997) ArticleTitleTreatment of colorectal and ileoanal anastomotic sinuses Dis Colon Rectum 40 760–763 Occurrence Handle9221848 Occurrence Handle10.1007/BF02055427 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:ByiA28vovF0%3D

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. RA DuBrow CL David SA Curley (1995) ArticleTitleAnastomotic leaks after low anterior resection for rectal carcinoma: evaluation with CT and barium enema AJR Am J Roentgenol 165 567–571 Occurrence Handle7645472 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:ByqA2szktFI%3D

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. TR McLean J Thornby LG Svensson (1993) ArticleTitlePredicting the results and outcome of patients who undergo abdominal CT scanning while in the surgical intensive care unit Am Surg 59 610–614 Occurrence Handle8368669 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:ByyA2sfisVU%3D

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. ML Corman SI Allison JP Kuehne (2002) Handbook of colon and rectal surgery Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  10. S Petersen M Freitag G Hellmich K Ludwig (1998) ArticleTitleAnastomotic leakage: impact on local recurrence and survival in surgery of colorectal cancer Int J Colorectal Dis 13 160–163 Occurrence Handle9810519 Occurrence Handle10.1007/s003840050158 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK1M%2FivVaitg%3D%3D

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. R Cherukuri MS Levine DD Maki SE Rubesin I Laufer EF Rosato (1998) ArticleTitleHartmann’s pouch: radiographic evaluation of postoperative findings AJR Am J Roentgenol 171 1577–1582 Occurrence Handle9843291 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK1M%2FlslChtw%3D%3D

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. TE Pakkastic PE Luukkonen HJ Jarvinen (1994) ArticleTitleAnastomotic leakage after anterior resection of the rectum Eur J Surg 160 293–297

    Google Scholar 

  13. A Blachar MP Federles KM Pealer S Ikramuddin PR Schauer (2002) ArticleTitleGastrointestinal complications of laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery: clinical and imaging findings Radiology 223 625–632 Occurrence Handle12034927

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. J Bruce ZH Kukowski G Al-Khairy EM Russell KG Park (2001) ArticleTitleSystematic review of the definition and measurement of anastomotic leak after gastrointestinal surgery Br J Surg 88 1157–1168 Occurrence Handle11531861 Occurrence Handle10.1046/j.0007-1323.2001.01829.x Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3MvovFyqtA%3D%3D

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. W Tanomkiat W Galassi (2000) ArticleTitleBarium sulfate as contrast medium for evaluation of postoperative anastomotic leaks Acta Radiol 41 482–485 Occurrence Handle11016771 Occurrence Handle10.1080/028418500127345730 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3cvmtl2nsw%3D%3D

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. AK Goel S Sinha TK Chattopadhyay (1995) ArticleTitleRole of gastrograffin study in the assessment of anastomotic leaks from cervical oesophagogastric anastomosis ANZ J Surg 65 8–10 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:ByqC3MfisVA%3D

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. JC Alberts A Paravaiz BJ Moran (2003) ArticleTitlePredicting risk and diminishing the consequences of anastomotic dehiscence following rectal resection Colorectal Dis 5 478–482 Occurrence Handle12925084 Occurrence Handle10.1046/j.1463-1318.2003.00515.x Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3szovVentw%3D%3D

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. ND Karanja AP Cored P Bearn RJ Heald (1994) ArticleTitleLeakage from stapled low anastomosis after total mesorectal excision for carcinoma of the rectum Br J Surg 81 1224–1226

    Google Scholar 

  19. AM Akyol JR McGregor DJ Galloway WD George (1992) ArticleTitleEarly postoperative contrast radiology in the assessment of colorectal anastomotic integrity Int J Colorectal Dis 7 141–143 Occurrence Handle1402311 Occurrence Handle10.1007/BF00360354

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. J Hoffmann RH Jensen M Hosein Shoukouh-Amiri P Damm (1988) ArticleTitleClinical value of water-soluble contrast enema in assessing the integrity of left colonic anastomoses J R Coll Surg Edinb 33 23–24 Occurrence Handle3418572 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:BieA3s3ns1I%3D

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. MM Alfisher FJ Scholz PL Roberts T Counihan (1997) ArticleTitleRadiology of ileal pouch-anal anastomosis: normal findings, examination pitfalls, and complications Radiographics 17 81–98 Occurrence Handle9017801 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:ByiC2s%2FislY%3D

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. PN Malcolm KK Bhagat MA Chapman SG Davies NS Williams (1995) ArticleTitleComplications of the ileal pouch: is the pouchogram a useful predictor? Clin Radiol 50 613–617 Occurrence Handle7554735 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S0009-9260(05)83290-8 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:BymD2c7hsFQ%3D

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. IM Kelly CI Bartram RJ Nicholls (1994) ArticleTitleWater-soluble contrast pouchography-technique and findings in 85 patients Clin Radiol 49 612–616 Occurrence Handle7955887 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S0009-9260(05)81877-X Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:ByqD2czpt1c%3D

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. B Lucey M Maher G Boland D Gervais P Mueller (2002) ArticleTitlePercutaneous treatment by interventional radiologists of anastomotic leaks: basic concepts AJR Am J Roentgenol 179 365–369 Occurrence Handle12130433

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Connecticut Health Center and School of Medicine, Farmington, Connecticut, USA

    G. A. Nicksa M.D. & R. V. Dring M.D.

  2. Department of Colorectal Surgery, Hartford Hospital, Hartford, Connecticut, USA

    K. H. Johnson M.D., W. V. Sardella M.D., P. V. Vignati M.D. & J. L. Cohen M.D.

Authors
  1. G. A. Nicksa M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. R. V. Dring M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. K. H. Johnson M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. W. V. Sardella M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. P. V. Vignati M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. J. L. Cohen M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Reprints are not available.

About this article

Cite this article

Nicksa, G.A., Dring, R.V., Johnson, K.H. et al. Anastomotic Leaks: What is the Best Diagnostic Imaging Study?. Dis Colon Rectum 50, 197–203 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10350-006-0708-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10350-006-0708-x

Key words

Search

Navigation