Standard versus eversion-modified double-staple technique for low colorectal anastomoses after resection of rectal cancer

4Citations
Citations of this article
6Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Purpose: The double-staple technique, performed as either the standard procedure or after eversion of the rectal stump, is a well-established method of performing low colorectal anastomoses following the resection of rectal cancer. Eversion of the tumor-bearing ano-rectal stump was proposed to allow the linear stapler to be fired at a safe distance of clearance from the tumor. We conducted this study to compare the results of the standard versus the eversion-modified double-staple technique. Methods: The subjects of this retrospective study were 753 consecutive patients who underwent low stapled colorectal anastomosis after resection of rectal cancer. The patients were divided into two groups according to the method of anastomosis used: Group A comprised 165 patients (22%) treated with the modified eversion technique and group B comprised 588 patients (78%) treated with the standard technique. The primary endpoints of the study were postoperative mortality, surgery-related morbidity, the number of sampled lymph nodes in the mesorectum, and late disease-related survival. Results: Postoperative mortality was 1.2% in group A and 1.7% in group B (p = 0.66). Postoperative morbidity was 12% in group A and 11% in group B (p = 0.75). The mean number of sampled lymph nodes in the mesorectum was 23 (range 17–27) in group A and 24 (range 19–29) in group B (p = 0.06). The 5-year disease-related survival was 73% in group A and 74% in group B (p = 0.75). Conclusion: The standard and eversion-modified double-staple techniques yield comparable results.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Illuminati, G., Pasqua, R., Perotti, B., Urciuoli, P., Nardi, P., Fratini, C., … Valle, M. (2021). Standard versus eversion-modified double-staple technique for low colorectal anastomoses after resection of rectal cancer. Surgery Today, 51(5), 785–791. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-020-02174-5

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