Diagnosis, treatment, and consequences of anastomotic leakage in colorectal surgery

226Citations
Citations of this article
285Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to explore the choice of modality for diagnosis, treatments, and consequences of anastomotic leakage. Methods: This is a retrospective study of consecutive patients who underwent surgery that included a colorectal anastomosis due to colorectal cancer, diverticulitis, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), or benign polyps. Results: A total of 600 patients were included during 2010–2012, and 60 (10%) had an anastomotic leakage. It took in mean 8.8 days (range 2–42) until the anastomotic leakage was diagnosed. A total of 44/60 of the patients with a leakage had a CT scan of the abdomen; 11 (25%) were initially negative for anastomotic leakage. Among all leakages, the anastomosis was taken down in 45 patients (76.3%). All patients with a grade B leakage (n = 6) were treated with antibiotics, and two also received transanal drainage. The overall complication rate was also significantly higher in those with leakage (93.3 vs. 28.5%, p < 0.001), and it was more common with more than three complications (70 vs. 1.5%, p < 0.001). There was a higher mortality in the leakage group. Conclusion: This study demonstrated that one fourth of the CT scans that were executed were initially negative for leakage. Most patients with a grade C leakage will not have an intact anastomosis. An anastomotic leakage leads to significantly more severe postoperative complications, higher rate of reoperations, and higher mortality. An earlier relaparotomy instead of a CT scan and improved postoperative surveillance could possibly reduce the consequences of the anastomotic leakage.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Gessler, B., Eriksson, O., & Angenete, E. (2017). Diagnosis, treatment, and consequences of anastomotic leakage in colorectal surgery. International Journal of Colorectal Disease, 32(4), 549–556. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-016-2744-x

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free