Anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection for rectal cancer is different between minimally invasive surgery and open surgery

Chang Woo Kim, Se Jin Baek, Hyuk Hur, Byung Soh Min, Seung Hyuk Baik, Nam Kyu Kim

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

21 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To review and compare clinical manifestations of and risk factors for anastomotic leakage (AL) after low anterior resection for rectal cancer between minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open surgery (OS). Background: MIS for rectal cancer has become popular, and its clinical course is different from OS. Many studies have reported on the risk factors and oncologic influence of AL. However, few have directly compared clinical manifestations and risk factors for AL between MIS and OS. Methods: From January 2004 to December 2012, a total of 1704 consecutive patients who underwent elective low anterior resection with colorectal anastomosis for rectal cancer were eligible. The variables associated with short-term outcomes and risk factors were analyzed. Results: The overall AL incidence was 6.4%. In the MIS-AL group, the time to diagnosis of AL and the time to second operation were shorter. A majority of the patients (77.8%) in the MIS-AL group underwent second MIS operation, whereas none in the OS-AL group. The hospital stays after second MIS were shorter than those after second open operation. Multivariate analyses revealed that male sex, smoking and alcohol intake history, previous abdominal surgery, longer operation times, low-lying tumor, and using 2 or more staplers for distal rectal resection were independent risk factors in the MIS-AL group, whereas smoking and alcohol intake history, operation times, and blood loss were significant in the OS-AL group. Conclusions: The clinical manifestations of and risk factors for AL were different between MIS and OS. AL after MIS may be more influenced by factors related to technical difficulties. Close attention should be given to patients undergoing surgery with risk factors for AL.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)130-137
Number of pages8
JournalAnnals of surgery
Volume263
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2016 Jan 1

Fingerprint

Anastomotic Leak
Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures
Rectal Neoplasms
Smoking
History
Alcohols
Length of Stay

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Surgery

Cite this

Kim, Chang Woo ; Baek, Se Jin ; Hur, Hyuk ; Min, Byung Soh ; Baik, Seung Hyuk ; Kim, Nam Kyu. / Anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection for rectal cancer is different between minimally invasive surgery and open surgery. In: Annals of surgery. 2016 ; Vol. 263, No. 1. pp. 130-137.
@article{0196b5321cab4bcab2eb12db687efcd5,
title = "Anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection for rectal cancer is different between minimally invasive surgery and open surgery",
abstract = "Objective: To review and compare clinical manifestations of and risk factors for anastomotic leakage (AL) after low anterior resection for rectal cancer between minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open surgery (OS). Background: MIS for rectal cancer has become popular, and its clinical course is different from OS. Many studies have reported on the risk factors and oncologic influence of AL. However, few have directly compared clinical manifestations and risk factors for AL between MIS and OS. Methods: From January 2004 to December 2012, a total of 1704 consecutive patients who underwent elective low anterior resection with colorectal anastomosis for rectal cancer were eligible. The variables associated with short-term outcomes and risk factors were analyzed. Results: The overall AL incidence was 6.4{\%}. In the MIS-AL group, the time to diagnosis of AL and the time to second operation were shorter. A majority of the patients (77.8{\%}) in the MIS-AL group underwent second MIS operation, whereas none in the OS-AL group. The hospital stays after second MIS were shorter than those after second open operation. Multivariate analyses revealed that male sex, smoking and alcohol intake history, previous abdominal surgery, longer operation times, low-lying tumor, and using 2 or more staplers for distal rectal resection were independent risk factors in the MIS-AL group, whereas smoking and alcohol intake history, operation times, and blood loss were significant in the OS-AL group. Conclusions: The clinical manifestations of and risk factors for AL were different between MIS and OS. AL after MIS may be more influenced by factors related to technical difficulties. Close attention should be given to patients undergoing surgery with risk factors for AL.",
author = "Kim, {Chang Woo} and Baek, {Se Jin} and Hyuk Hur and Min, {Byung Soh} and Baik, {Seung Hyuk} and Kim, {Nam Kyu}",
year = "2016",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/SLA.0000000000001157",
language = "English",
volume = "263",
pages = "130--137",
journal = "Annals of Surgery",
issn = "0003-4932",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "1",

}

Anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection for rectal cancer is different between minimally invasive surgery and open surgery. / Kim, Chang Woo; Baek, Se Jin; Hur, Hyuk; Min, Byung Soh; Baik, Seung Hyuk; Kim, Nam Kyu.

In: Annals of surgery, Vol. 263, No. 1, 01.01.2016, p. 130-137.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection for rectal cancer is different between minimally invasive surgery and open surgery

AU - Kim, Chang Woo

AU - Baek, Se Jin

AU - Hur, Hyuk

AU - Min, Byung Soh

AU - Baik, Seung Hyuk

AU - Kim, Nam Kyu

PY - 2016/1/1

Y1 - 2016/1/1

N2 - Objective: To review and compare clinical manifestations of and risk factors for anastomotic leakage (AL) after low anterior resection for rectal cancer between minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open surgery (OS). Background: MIS for rectal cancer has become popular, and its clinical course is different from OS. Many studies have reported on the risk factors and oncologic influence of AL. However, few have directly compared clinical manifestations and risk factors for AL between MIS and OS. Methods: From January 2004 to December 2012, a total of 1704 consecutive patients who underwent elective low anterior resection with colorectal anastomosis for rectal cancer were eligible. The variables associated with short-term outcomes and risk factors were analyzed. Results: The overall AL incidence was 6.4%. In the MIS-AL group, the time to diagnosis of AL and the time to second operation were shorter. A majority of the patients (77.8%) in the MIS-AL group underwent second MIS operation, whereas none in the OS-AL group. The hospital stays after second MIS were shorter than those after second open operation. Multivariate analyses revealed that male sex, smoking and alcohol intake history, previous abdominal surgery, longer operation times, low-lying tumor, and using 2 or more staplers for distal rectal resection were independent risk factors in the MIS-AL group, whereas smoking and alcohol intake history, operation times, and blood loss were significant in the OS-AL group. Conclusions: The clinical manifestations of and risk factors for AL were different between MIS and OS. AL after MIS may be more influenced by factors related to technical difficulties. Close attention should be given to patients undergoing surgery with risk factors for AL.

AB - Objective: To review and compare clinical manifestations of and risk factors for anastomotic leakage (AL) after low anterior resection for rectal cancer between minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open surgery (OS). Background: MIS for rectal cancer has become popular, and its clinical course is different from OS. Many studies have reported on the risk factors and oncologic influence of AL. However, few have directly compared clinical manifestations and risk factors for AL between MIS and OS. Methods: From January 2004 to December 2012, a total of 1704 consecutive patients who underwent elective low anterior resection with colorectal anastomosis for rectal cancer were eligible. The variables associated with short-term outcomes and risk factors were analyzed. Results: The overall AL incidence was 6.4%. In the MIS-AL group, the time to diagnosis of AL and the time to second operation were shorter. A majority of the patients (77.8%) in the MIS-AL group underwent second MIS operation, whereas none in the OS-AL group. The hospital stays after second MIS were shorter than those after second open operation. Multivariate analyses revealed that male sex, smoking and alcohol intake history, previous abdominal surgery, longer operation times, low-lying tumor, and using 2 or more staplers for distal rectal resection were independent risk factors in the MIS-AL group, whereas smoking and alcohol intake history, operation times, and blood loss were significant in the OS-AL group. Conclusions: The clinical manifestations of and risk factors for AL were different between MIS and OS. AL after MIS may be more influenced by factors related to technical difficulties. Close attention should be given to patients undergoing surgery with risk factors for AL.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84953721788&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84953721788&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001157

DO - 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001157

M3 - Article

C2 - 25692355

AN - SCOPUS:84953721788

VL - 263

SP - 130

EP - 137

JO - Annals of Surgery

JF - Annals of Surgery

SN - 0003-4932

IS - 1

ER -