Comparison of proactive and conventional treatment of anastomotic leakage in rectal cancer surgery: a multicentre retrospective cohort series
Kevin Talboom, Nynke G. Greijdanus, Nathan Brinkman, Robin D. Blok, S. X. Roodbeen, Cyriel Y. Ponsioen, Pieter J. Tanis, Willem A. Bemelman, Chris Cunningham, F. Borja de Lacy, Roel Hompes
Abstract
PURPOSE: Comparative studies on efficacy of treatment strategies for anastomotic leakage (AL) after low anterior resection (LAR) are almost non-existent. This study aimed to compare different proactive and conservative treatment approaches for AL after LAR. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included all patients with AL after LAR in three university hospitals. Different treatment approaches were compared, including a pairwise comparison of conventional treatment and endoscopic vacuum-assisted surgical closure (EVASC). Primary outcomes were healed and functional anastomosis rates at end of follow-up. RESULTS: Overall, 103 patients were included, of which 59 underwent conventional treatment and 23 EVASC. Median number of reinterventions was 1 after conventional treatment, compared to 7 after EVASC (p < 0.01). Median follow-up was 39 and 25 months, respectively. Healed anastomosis rate was 61% after conventional treatment, compared to 78% after EVASC (p = 0.139). Functional anastomosis rate was higher after EVASC, compared to conventional treatment (78% vs. 54%, p = 0.045). Early initiation of EVASC in the first week after primary surgery resulted in better functional anastomosis rate compared to later initiation (100% vs. 55%, p = 0.008). CONCLUSION: Proactive treatment of AL consisting of EVASC resulted in improved healed and functional anastomosis rates for AL after LAR for rectal cancer, compared to conventional treatment. If EVASC was initiated within the first week after index surgery, a 100% functional anastomosis rate was achievable.