The effect of erythropoietin on healing of obstructive vs nonobstructive left colonic anastomosis: an experimental study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Anastomotic leakage is an important problem following primary resection in the left colon and is even more prominent when obstruction is present. We aimed to evaluate the possible effects of erythropoietin on the healing of anastomosis under both obstructive and non-obstructive states.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Forty male Wistar albino rats were divided into four groups. In group I, two cm left colonic resection and primary anastomosis were done. In group II, left colon were completely ligated and 24 hours later animals were re-operated for segmental resection. The same procedures were performed for rats in group III and IV in respect to group I and II and, 500 IU/kg a day erythropoietin were given in the latter two groups for seven days. For the quantative description of anastomotic healing mechanical, biochemical and histopathological parameters were employed on the seventh day and the animals were sacrificied.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Although erythropoietin had positive effects on bursting pressure in group IV when compared to group II, it has no effect in group III. Despite the increased tissue hydroxyproline levels in group IV, erythropoietin failed to show any effects in group III.</p> <p>Erythropoietin had positive effects on neovascularization, fibroblast proliferiation and storage of collagen in group IV.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>We failed to find any direct and evident effects of erythropoietin on healing of left colonic anastomosis. On the other hand, erythropoietin might prevent negative effects of obstruction on healing.</p

Stoma-free survival after anastomotic leak following rectal cancer resection: worldwide cohort of 2470 patients

Background: The optimal treatment of anastomotic leak after rectal cancer resection is unclear. This worldwide cohort study aimed to provide an overview of four treatment strategies applied. Methods: Patients from 216 centres and 45 countries with anastomotic leak after rectal cancer resection between 2014 and 2018 were included. Treatment was categorized as salvage surgery, faecal diversion with passive or active (vacuum) drainage, and no primary/secondary faecal diversion. The primary outcome was 1-year stoma-free survival. In addition, passive and active drainage were compared using propensity score matching (2: 1). Results: Of 2470 evaluable patients, 388 (16.0 per cent) underwent salvage surgery, 1524 (62.0 per cent) passive drainage, 278 (11.0 per cent) active drainage, and 280 (11.0 per cent) had no faecal diversion. One-year stoma-free survival rates were 13.7, 48.3, 48.2, and 65.4 per cent respectively. Propensity score matching resulted in 556 patients with passive and 278 with active drainage. There was no statistically significant difference between these groups in 1-year stoma-free survival (OR 0.95, 95 per cent c.i. 0.66 to 1.33), with a risk difference of -1.1 (95 per cent c.i. -9.0 to 7.0) per cent. After active drainage, more patients required secondary salvage surgery (OR 2.32, 1.49 to 3.59), prolonged hospital admission (an additional 6 (95 per cent c.i. 2 to 10) days), and ICU admission (OR 1.41, 1.02 to 1.94). Mean duration of leak healing did not differ significantly (an additional 12 (-28 to 52) days). Conclusion: Primary salvage surgery or omission of faecal diversion likely correspond to the most severe and least severe leaks respectively. In patients with diverted leaks, stoma-free survival did not differ statistically between passive and active drainage, although the increased risk of secondary salvage surgery and ICU admission suggests residual confounding