Colorectal Anastomotic Leakage: New perspectives

__Abstract__ This thesis provides new perspectives on colorectal anastomotic leakages. In both experimental and clinical studies, aspects of prevention, early identification, treatment and consequences of anastomotic leakage are discussed

Fluid management and vasopressor use during colorectal surgery: the search for the optimal balance

BackgroundAlthough it is known that excessive intraoperative fluid and vasopressor agents are detrimental for anastomotic healing, optimal anesthesiology protocols for colorectal surgery are currently lacking.ObjectiveTo scrutinize the current hemodynamic practice and vasopressor use and their relation to colorectal anastomotic leakage.DesignA secondary analysis of a previously published prospective observational study: the LekCheck study.Study settingAdult patients undergoing a colorectal resection with the creation of a primary anastomosis.Outcome measuresColorectal anastomotic leakage (CAL) within 30 days postoperatively, hospital length of stay and 30-day mortality.ResultsOf the 1548 patients, 579 (37%) received vasopressor agents during surgery. Of these, 201 were treated with solely noradrenaline, 349 were treated with phenylephrine, and 29 received ephedrine. CAL rate significantly differed between the patients receiving vasopressor agents during surgery compared to patients without (11.8% vs 6.3%, p < 0.001). CAL was significantly higher in the group receiving phenylephrine compared to noradrenaline (14.3% vs 6%, p < 0.001). Vasopressor agents were used more often in patients treated with Goal Directed Therapy (47% vs 34.6%, p < 0.001). There was a higher mortality rate in patients with vasopressors compared to the group without (2.8% vs 0.4%, p = 0.01, OR 3.8). Mortality was higher in the noradrenaline group compared to the phenylephrine and those without vasopressors (5% vs. 0.4% and 1.7%, respectively, p < 0.001). In multivariable analysis, patients with intraoperative vasopressor agents had an increased risk to develop CAL (OR 2.1, CI 1.3-3.2, p = 0.001).ConclusionThe present study contributes to the evidence that intraoperative use of vasopressor agents is associated with a higher rate of CAL. This study helps to create awareness on the (necessity to) use of vasopressor agents in colorectal surgery patients in striving for successful anastomotic wound healing. Future research will be required to balance vasopressor agent dosage in view of colorectal anastomotic leakage

Transanal total mesorectal excision: how are we doing so far?

Aim This subgroup analysis of a prospective multicentre cohort study aims to compare postoperative morbidity between transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LaTME). Method The study was designed as a subgroup analysis of a prospective multicentre cohort study. Patients undergoing TaTME or LaTME for rectal cancer were selected. All patients were followed up until the first visit to the outpatient clinic after hospital discharge. Postoperative complications were classified according to the Clavien–Dindo classification and the comprehensive complication index (CCI). Propensity score matching was performed. Results In total, 220 patients were selected from the overall prospective multicentre cohort study. After propensity score matching, 48 patients from each group were compared. The median tumour height for TaTME was 10.0 cm (6.0–10.8) and for LaTME was 9.5 cm (7.0–12.0) (P = 0.459). The duration of surgery and anaesthesia were both significantly longer for TaTME (221 vs 180 min, P < 0.001, and 264 vs 217 min, P < 0.001). TaTME was not converted to laparotomy whilst surgery in five patients undergoing LaTME was converted to laparotomy (0.0% vs 10.4%, P = 0.056). No statistically significant differences were observed for Clavien–Dindo classification, CCI, readmissions, reoperations and mortality. Conclusion The study showed that TaTME is a safe and feasible approach for rectal cancer resection. This new technique obtained similar postoperative morbidity to LaTME

Severity of oEsophageal Anastomotic Leak in patients after oesophagectomy:the SEAL score

Background Anastomotic leak (AL) is a common but severe complication after oesophagectomy. It is unknown how to determine the severity of AL objectively at diagnosis. Determining leak severity may guide treatment decisions and improve future research. This study aimed to identify leak-related prognostic factors for mortality, and to develop a Severity of oEsophageal Anastomotic Leak (SEAL) score. Methods This international, retrospective cohort study in 71 centres worldwide included patients with AL after oesophagectomy between 2011 and 2019. The primary endpoint was 90-day mortality. Leak-related prognostic factors were identified after adjusting for confounders and were included in multivariable logistic regression to develop the SEAL score. Four classes of leak severity (mild, moderate, severe, and critical) were defined based on the risk of 90-day mortality, and the score was validated internally. Results Some 1509 patients with AL were included and the 90-day mortality rate was 11.7 per cent. Twelve leak-related prognostic factors were included in the SEAL score. The score showed good calibration and discrimination (c-index 0.77, 95 per cent c.i. 0.73 to 0.81). Higher classes of leak severity graded by the SEAL score were associated with a significant increase in duration of ICU stay, healing time, Comprehensive Complication Index score, and Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group classification. Conclusion The SEAL score grades leak severity into four classes by combining 12 leak-related predictors and can be used to the assess severity of AL after oesophagectomy.The Severity of oEsophageal Anastomotic Leak (SEAL) score was developed using data from the TENTACLE-Esophagus study, an international, multicentre retrospective cohort study including 1509 patients with anastomotic leak after oesophagectomy. The SEAL score was developed to determine anastomotic leak severity at diagnosis, and combines 12 leak-related parameters at diagnosis. The score may be useful in clinical practice and could improve future research.</p

Should jaundice preclude resection in patients with gallbladder cancer? Results from a nation-wide cohort study

Background: It is controversial whether patients with gallbladder cancer (GBC) presenting with jaundice benefit from resection. This study re-evaluates the impact of jaundice on resectability and survival. Methods: Data was collected on surgically explored GBC patients in all Dutch academic hospitals from 2000 to 2018. Survival and prognostic factors were assessed. Results: In total 202 patients underwent exploration and 148 were resected; 124 non-jaundiced patients (104 resected) and 75 jaundiced patients (44 resected). Jaundiced patients had significantly (P < 0.05) more pT3/T4 tumors, extended (≥3 segments) liver- and organ resections, major post-operative complications and margin-positive resection. 90-day mortality was higher in jaundiced patients (14% vs. 0%, P < 0.001). Median overall survival (OS) was 7.7 months in jaundiced patients (2-year survival 17%) vs. 26.1 months in non-jaundiced patients (2-year survival 39%, P < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, jaundice (HR1.89) was a poor prognostic factor for OS in surgically explored but not in resected patients. Six jaundiced patients did not develop a recurrence; none had liver- or common bile duct (CBD) invasion on imaging. Conclusion: Jaundice is associated with poor survival. However, jaundice is not an independent adverse prognostic factor in resected patients. Surgery should be considered in patients with limited disease and no CBD invasion on imaging

Treatment of anastomotic leak after oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer:large, collaborative, observational TENTACLE cohort study

Background: Anastomotic leak is a severe complication after oesophagectomy. Anastomotic leak has diverse clinical manifestations and the optimal treatment strategy is unknown. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of treatment strategies for different manifestations of anastomotic leak after oesophagectomy. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed in 71 centres worldwide and included patients with anastomotic leak after oesophagectomy (2011-2019). Different primary treatment strategies were compared for three different anastomotic leak manifestations: interventional versus supportive-only treatment for local manifestations (that is no intrathoracic collections; well perfused conduit); drainage and defect closure versus drainage only for intrathoracic manifestations; and oesophageal diversion versus continuity-preserving treatment for conduit ischaemia/necrosis. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for confounders. Results: Of 1508 patients with anastomotic leak, 28.2 per cent (425 patients) had local manifestations, 36.3 per cent (548 patients) had intrathoracic manifestations, 9.6 per cent (145 patients) had conduit ischaemia/necrosis, 17.5 per cent (264 patients) were allocated after multiple imputation, and 8.4 per cent (126 patients) were excluded. After propensity score matching, no statistically significant differences in 90-day mortality were found regarding interventional versus supportive-only treatment for local manifestations (risk difference 3.2 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. -1.8 to 8.2 per cent), drainage and defect closure versus drainage only for intrathoracic manifestations (risk difference 5.8 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. -1.2 to 12.8 per cent), and oesophageal diversion versus continuity-preserving treatment for conduit ischaemia/necrosis (risk difference 0.1 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. -21.4 to 1.6 per cent). In general, less morbidity was found after less extensive primary treatment strategies. Conclusion: Less extensive primary treatment of anastomotic leak was associated with less morbidity. A less extensive primary treatment approach may potentially be considered for anastomotic leak. Future studies are needed to confirm current findings and guide optimal treatment of anastomotic leak after oesophagectomy.</p

Intrathoracic vs Cervical Anastomosis After Totally or Hybrid Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer A Randomized Clinical Trial

Background: Transthoracic minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is increasingly performed as part of curative multimodality treatment. There appears to be no robust evidence on the preferred location of the anastomosis after transthoracic MIE. Objective: To compare an intrathoracic with a cervical anastomosis in a randomized clinical trial. Design, Setting, and Participants: This open, multicenter randomized clinical superiority trial was performed at 9 Dutch high-volume hospitals. Patients with midesophageal to distal esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer planned for curative resection were included. Data collection occurred from April 2016 through February 2020. Intervention: Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to transthoracic MIE with intrathoracic or cervical anastomosis. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was anastomotic leakage requiring endoscopic, radiologic, or surgical intervention. Secondary outcomes were overall anastomotic leak rate, other postoperative complications, length of stay, mortality, and quality of life. Results: Two hundred sixty-two patients were randomized, and 245 were eligible for analysis. Anastomotic leakage necessitating reintervention occurred in 15 of 122 patients with intrathoracic anastomosis (12.3%) and in 39 of 123 patients with cervical anastomosis (31.7%; risk difference, -19.4% [95% CI, -29.5% to -9.3%]). Overall anastomotic leak rate was 12.3% in the intrathoracic anastomosis group and 34.1% in the cervical anastomosis group (risk difference, -21.9% [95% CI, -32.1% to -11.6%]). Intensive care unit length of stay, mortality rates, and overall quality of life were comparable between groups, but intrathoracic anastomosis was associated with fewer severe complications (risk difference, -11.3% [-20.4% to -2.2%]), lower incidence of recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy (risk difference, -7.3% [95% CI, -12.1% to -2.5%]), and better quality of life in 3 subdomains (mean differences: dysphagia, -12.2 [95% CI, -19.6 to -4.7]; problems of choking when swallowing, -10.3 [95% CI, -16.4 to 4.2]; trouble with talking, -15.3 [95% CI, -22.9 to -7.7]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, intrathoracic anastomosis resulted in better outcome for patients treated with transthoracic MIE for midesophageal to distal esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer. Trial Registration: Trialregister.nl Identifier: NL4183 (NTR4333)

Somatostatin analogues for the prevention of pancreatic fistula after open pancreatoduodenectomy:A nationwide analysis

BACKGROUND: Somatostatin analogues (SA) are currently used to prevent postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) development. However, its use is controversial. This study investigated the effect of different SA protocols on the incidence of POPF after pancreatoduodenectomy in a nationwide population. METHODS: All patients undergoing elective open pancreatoduodenectomy were included from the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (2014-2017). Patients were divided into six groups: no SA, octreotide, lanreotide, pasireotide, octreotide only in high-risk (HR) patients and lanreotide only in HR patients. Primary endpoint was POPF grade B/C. The updated alternative Fistula Risk Score was used to compare POPF rates across various risk scenarios. RESULTS: 1992 patients were included. Overall POPF rate was 13.1%. Lanreotide (10.0%), octreotide-HR (9.4%) and no protocol (12.7%) POPF rates were lower compared to the other protocols (varying from 15.1 to 19.1%, p = 0.001) in crude analysis. Sub-analysis in patients with HR of POPF showed a significantly lower rate of POPF when treated with lanreotide (10.0%) compared to no protocol, octreotide and pasireotide protocol (21.6-26.9%, p = 0.006). Octreotide-HR and lanreotide-HR protocol POPF rates were comparable to lanreotide protocol, however not significantly different from the other protocols. Multivariable regression analysis demonstrated lanreotide protocol to be positively associated with a low odds-ratio (OR) for POPF (OR 0.387, 95% CI 0.180-0.834, p = 0.015). In-hospital mortality rates were not affected. CONCLUSION: Use of lanreotide in all patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy has a potential protective effect on POPF development. Protocols for HR patients only might be favorable too. However, future studies are warranted to confirm these findings

Minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic and peri-ampullary neoplasm (DIPLOMA-2):study protocol for an international multicenter patient-blinded randomized controlled trial

Background: Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) aims to reduce the negative impact of surgery as compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) and is increasingly becoming part of clinical practice for selected patients worldwide. However, the safety of MIPD remains a topic of debate and the potential shorter time to functional recovery needs to be confirmed. To guide safe implementation of MIPD, large-scale international randomized trials comparing MIPD and OPD in experienced high-volume centers are needed. We hypothesize that MIPD is non-inferior in terms of overall complications, but superior regarding time to functional recovery, as compared to OPD. Methods/design: The DIPLOMA-2 trial is an international randomized controlled, patient-blinded, non-inferiority trial performed in 14 high-volume pancreatic centers in Europe with a minimum annual volume of 30 MIPD and 30 OPD. A total of 288 patients with an indication for elective pancreatoduodenectomy for pre-malignant and malignant disease, eligible for both open and minimally invasive approach, are randomly allocated for MIPD or OPD in a 2:1 ratio. Centers perform either laparoscopic or robot-assisted MIPD based on their surgical expertise. The primary outcome is the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI®), measuring all complications graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification up to 90 days after surgery. The sample size is calculated with the following assumptions: 2.5% one-sided significance level (α), 80% power (1-β), expected difference of the mean CCI® score of 0 points between MIPD and OPD, and a non-inferiority margin of 7.5 points. The main secondary outcome is time to functional recovery, which will be analyzed for superiority. Other secondary outcomes include post-operative 90-day Fitbit™ measured activity, operative outcomes (e.g., blood loss, operative time, conversion to open surgery, surgeon-reported outcomes), oncological findings in case of malignancy (e.g., R0-resection rate, time to adjuvant treatment, survival), postoperative outcomes (e.g., clinically relevant complications), healthcare resource utilization (length of stay, readmissions, intensive care stay), quality of life, and costs. Postoperative follow-up is up to 36 months. Discussion: The DIPLOMA-2 trial aims to establish the safety of MIPD as the new standard of care for this selected patient population undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy in high-volume centers, ultimately aiming for superior patient recovery. Trial registration: ISRCTN27483786. Registered on August 2, 2023.</p

Prospective observational cohort study of oesophagogastric cancer patients (POCOP): A Dutch nationwide cohort

Experimentele farmacotherapi