The surgical procedure was standardized, as described previously.17 We routinely performed high ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery. The splenic flexure was mobilized totally or partially, depending on the bowel length. After mobilization of the left colon, we performed tumor-specific mesorectal excision. The distal rectum was divided intracorporeally with a linear articulated endostapler (Endo GIA Ultra Universal, COVIDIEN, Mansfield, MA) loaded with a 45 or 60 mm purple cartridge (Endo GIA Reloads with Tri-Staple Technology, COVIDIEN) through the 12 mm trocar with no precompression. The circular endostapler (DST Series EEA Stapler, COVIDIEN) was introduced through the anus (Fig. 3). The circumferential border of the rectal remnant was freed completely of perirectal fat for 1.0 to 1.5 cm of the staple line by electrocautery (ENDOPATH Electrosurgery PROBE PLUS II System, ETHICON, Cincinnati, OH), and then the inversion and invagination technique was performed. In this technique, the integrated trocar of the circular endostapler was opened on the linear staple line, which was free of fat; then, either one or both edges of the linear staple line were folded or pierced by the integrated trocar to hide the staple line inside the rim of the circular stapler head (Figs. 4, 6A). If the rectal remnant could not be mobilized distally enough to invaginate both edges of linear staple lines, left edge was pierced by integrated trocar and right edge was abandoned avoiding 2 intersections of staple lines and for ease of reinforcement suture (Figs. 5, 6B). After articulating the anvil with the integrated trocar of the endostapler and firing with no precompression, 2 distal and proximal “donuts” were immediately inspected and their integrity was verified. A pneumatic test was routinely carried out by transanal instillation of air. If there were intersections of staple lines, an intracorporeal reinforcement suture with 3-0 silk was placed at the intersection point. The level of anastomosis from the anal verge was measured by digital rectal examination.
Clinical Anastomotic Leakage
Anastomotic leakage was investigated in the presence of clinical leakage signs (discharge of pus or feces from the pelvic drain and signs of peritonitis including abdominal pain, tenderness, fever, or leukocytosis). Once leakage signs were suspected, a computerized tomography (CT) scan was performed to check anastomotic leakage. Diagnosis required positive findings, such as an abscess at the level of the anastomosis and fluid or air bubbles surrounding the anastomosis on CT scan. Asymptomatic anastomotic leakage was not considered because routine contrast enemas were not performed in our institution. We included only symptomatic anastomotic leakage (anastomotic leakage requiring active therapeutic interventions or an operation) in this study.
Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software, version 18.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc.). Continuous variables (age, body mass index, tumor location, distance of tumor from the anal verge, operation time, estimated blood loss, and distance of anastomosis from the anal verge) were dichotomized. The χ2 test and Fisher extract test were used for categorical variables. Multivariate analysis was conducted with logistic regression analysis to detect risk factors for anastomotic leakage, and factors with a P-value of <0.05 were included in the model.
Patient and Tumor Characteristics
In total, 128 consecutive patients underwent laparoscopic colorectal surgery with an end-to-end double stapling technique. Of them 89 patients were male (69.5%). The median age was 63 years old (range, 39 to 84 y), and the median body mass index was 23.7 kg/m2 (range, 14.5 to 35.0 kg/m2). Preoperative chemoradiotherapy was performed in 7 patients (5.4%) and 30 patients had a previous laparotomy (23.4%). Three patients had synchronous multiple colorectal cancers; 1 patient had 3 lesions and the rest had 2 lesions in the left colon and rectum. Tumor-related factors of their distal lesion were used in this study. Thirty-nine patients (30.5%) had sigmoid colon cancer, 44 patients (34.4%) had rectosigmoid junction cancer, 10 patients (7.8%) had upper rectal cancer, and 35 patients (27.3%) had middle and lower rectal cancer. The median distance of the tumor from the anal verge was 14.5 cm (range, 2 to 45 cm); 51 patients had cancer >15 cm from the anal verge (39.8%), 66 patients had cancer 6 to 15 cm from the anal verge (51.6%), and 11 patients had cancer <6 cm from the anal verge (8.6%). The correlations between patient and tumor characteristics and anastomotic leakage are summarized in Table 1. The distance of the tumor from the anal verge was the only factor that was significantly associated with the development of clinical anastomotic leakage in univariate analysis (<6 cm from anal verge; P=0.035).
Surgical procedures were subdivided into 3 groups: anterior resection (colorectal anastomosis above the anterior peritoneal reflection), low anterior resection (colorectal anastomosis below the anterior peritoneal reflection), and ultra-low anterior resection (no rectum remains and the colon was connected directly to the anal canal, including intersphincteric resection for sphincter-saving operation). The median operation time was 137 minutes (range, 80 to 340 min). The median estimated blood loss was 30.0 mL (range, 10 to 350 mL). The median distance of anastomosis from the anal verge was 9.0 cm (range, 1 to 20 cm). A short distance of anastomosis from the anal verge (P=0.033) and multiple intersections of staple lines (P=0.021) were significant risk factors for anastomotic leakage in univariate analysis. Results of univariate analysis for correlations between surgery-related factors and anastomotic leakage are detailed in Table 2. In a multivariate analysis that included factors with a P-value <0.05, these factors did not remain significantly correlated with anastomotic leakage.
Anastomotic leakage occurred in 1 patient (male, 62 y). The anastomotic leakage rate was 0.78% (1/128). Feculent discharge from the pelvic drain was noted on the third postoperative day with no symptoms or signs of peritonitis. Anastomotic leakage was confirmed by CT scan. The patient did not require surgical intervention and was treated by fasting, total parenteral nutrition, and antibiotics for 7 days. He left the hospital on the 13th postoperative day. Three patients with protective ileostomy did not have any anastomotic complications. In ultra-low anterior resection group, three patients who had received preoperative chemoradiotherapy were positive for pneumatic test. We performed fecal diversion in 1 patient whose point of air leakage could not be identified because of narrow pelvic cavity. Anastomotic stenosis occurred in 1 patient and we performed permanent colostomy 4 months after primary surgery. No patients had incomplete cut ring and bleeding of anastomotic site.
Factors Affecting the Number of Intersections of Staple Lines
Preoperative chemoradiotherapy, tumor location, operation time, distance of the tumor from the anal verge, type of operation, estimated blood loss, distance of the anastomosis from the anal verge, and number of cartridges for rectal division were significantly associated with the number of intersections of staple lines in univariate analysis (Table 3).
Anastomotic leakage is a major complication in patients with colorectal cancer undergoing laparoscopic surgery. It is associated with postoperative morbidity, mortality, functional defects, and oncologic outcomes.18–20 Despite technical improvements and instrumental developments, the anastomotic leakage rate remains at 6.3% to 13.7%.5,10–14 Recent reports have suggested that lower rectal cancer close to the anal canal should be treated with laparoscopic sphincter-saving rectal cancer resection with total mesorectal excision and preoperative chemoradiotherapy, instead of the traditional abdominoperineal resection.21,22 Potentially, the anastomotic leakage rate may be related to diversification of treatment strategies and an increased frequency of sphincter-saving rectal resection for lower rectal cancer.
An initial randomized controlled trial [the United Kingdom Medical Research Council Conventional versus Laparoscopic-Assisted Surgery in Colorectal Cancer (UK MRC CLASICC)] reported that laparoscopic-assisted surgery of the colon is as effective as open surgery in the short term and is likely to produce similar long-term outcomes and impaired short-term outcomes after laparoscopic anterior resection for rectal cancer.23 However, a number of studies have demonstrated that laparoscopic and open surgeries do not differ in terms of anastomotic leakage and that laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer is safe and feasible.24–27 Although laparoscopic surgery is well established for colonic and rectal cancers, several technical limitations are associated with anastomotic leakage. Unlike conventional open surgery, colorectal or coloanal anastomosis in laparoscopic surgery is performed in a restrictive and similar manner. Resection of the rectum after adequate mesorectal excision using intracorporeal stapling devices is technically difficult because of the narrow pelvic cavity and an inadequate cutting angle. Consequently, multiple firing of a linear endostapler, a long and tilted linear stapling line, lateral intersecting staple lines (dog-ears), multiple intersections of staple lines on the circular anastomotic plane, and size disparities between the two ends of the bowel are inherently different between laparoscopic colorectal surgery with the double stapling technique and conventional open surgery. Roumen et al7 reported that the lateral intersecting staple lines (dog-ears) of double stapling technique are structural weak spot and experimental study of Kawasaki et al8 demonstrated that the intersecting line of circular and linear stapler may be a dangerous point for the double stapling technique. Kuroyanagi et al9 reported technical efforts to remove the intersections of the linear staple lines, which may be a site of the anastomotic leakage. Asao et al28 introduced use of omega shape suture to eliminate the lateral intersecting lines in the double stapling technique. In this study, the operator tried to reduce these factors using adequate mesorectal excision, ensuring that the anastomotic plane was cleared of perirectal or pericolic fat, using the articulated endostapler adequately, and the inversion and invagination technique. In this study, the inversion and invagination technique was used to remove the intersections of staple lines and the lateral intersecting lines (dog-ears) on the anastomotic plane so that this plane becomes analogous to one produced by the single stapling technique (Figs. 4, 6A). Several recent studies have shown that multiple firing of the linear stapler increased the risk of anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer.3–6 However, our results are not consistent with the conclusions of these studies; we found that the number of intersections of staple lines (P=0.021) was a risk factor for anastomotic leakage in univariate analysis (Table 2). Therefore, we hypothesize that it is the placement of intersecting staple lines in the double stapling technique that jeopardizes the outcome, and not the number of firings of the linear endostapler.
The anastomotic leakage rate was of 0.78% (1/128) in this study, and this is the lowest of reported rates, which have ranged from 6.3% to 13.7%.5,10–14 This may be because of standardization of all the laparoscopic steps, including the technique used for intracorporeal rectal transection and anastomosis. The performance of the individual surgeon is one possible important risk factor for anastomotic leakage,29 and all cases in this study were performed by a single skilled operator whose learning curves had already reached their plateau.
Tumors in the middle or lower rectum at lower anastomotic levels are generally accepted as important risk factors for anastomotic leakage,4,30,31 which was consistent with our data (distance of tumor from anal verge, P=0.035; distance of anastomosis from anal verge, P=0.033). However, parameters related to the level of tumor or operation were not risk factors for anastomotic leakage in univariate analysis (tumor location, P=0.154; type of operation, P=0.055) (Tables 1, 2). These may be related to a subjective point of view of the endoscopist or operator and contain biased information. This study suggests that a quantification of tumor localization and anastomotic level has significance for assessing the risk of anastomotic leakage.
A number of studies have reported that old age, male sex, obesity, and preoperative chemoradiotherapy are risk factors for anastomotic leakage after colorectal cancer surgery.12,32–35 However, we have identified no patient-related and tumor-related factors that were associated with anastomotic leakage, except for the distance of the tumor from the anal verge (Table 1). Kim et al4 reported that a larger diameter circular stapler decreases blood supply in the rectal remnant, and subsequent ischemia results in anastomotic leakage. Our results differ from their conclusion. Almost all anastomoses were performed by larger diameter circular staplers (≤29 mm; 1/128, 31 mm; 118/128, 33 mm; 8/128, 34 mm; 1/128) and the anastomotic leakage occurred in the 31 mm group. The diameter of the circular stapler was not associated with anastomotic leakage in univariate analysis (P=1.000) (Table 2).
We analyzed the relationship between clinical factors and the number of intersections of staple lines. Multiple intersections of staple lines were associated with preoperative chemoradiotherapy, lower tumor location, short distance between the tumor and the anal verge, lower type of operation, long operation time, blood loss, reinforcement suture, short distance of the anastomosis from the anal verge, and many cartridges for rectal division (Table 3). When compared with upper rectal cancer, laparoscopic surgery for middle and lower rectal cancer was expected to have a longer operating time because it requires of deeper dissection with tumor-specific mesorectal excision. These factors are associated with the level of the tumor and the difficulty of each surgery. This study suggests that laparoscopic colorectal surgery for middle and lower rectal cancer may itself be a risk factor for anastomotic leakage because of the technical difficulty, which can be affected by instrument factors and the performance of an individual surgeon.
In conclusion, because of a very low anastomotic leakage rate, our data did not suggest any independent risk factors for anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic colorectal surgery with a double stapling technique in multivariate analysis. However, we have shown that a short distance of the tumor from the anal verge with a subsequent low anastomosis and intersections of staple lines tends to be associated with anastomotic leakage. Technical efforts to reduce the intersection of staple lines with the inversion and invagination technique may help to avoid anastomotic leakage.
1. Knight CD, Griffen FD. An improved technique for low anterior resection of the rectum using the EEA stapler. Surgery. 1980;88:710–714.
2. Cohen Z, Myers E, Langer B, et al. Double stapling technique
for low anterior resection. Dis Colon Rectum. 1983;26:231–235.
3. Ito M, Sugito M, Kobayashi A, et al. Relationship between multiple numbers of stapler firings during rectal division and anastomotic leakage
after laparoscopic rectal resection. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2008;23:703–707.
4. Kim JS, Cho SY, Min BS, et al. Risk factors for anastomotic leakage
after laparoscopic intracorporeal colorectal anastomosis with a double stapling technique
. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;209:694–701.
5. Park JS, Choi GS, Kim SH, et al. Multicenter analysis of risk factors for anastomotic leakage
after laparoscopic rectal cancer excision: the Korean laparoscopic colorectal surgery
study group. Ann Surg. 2013;257:665–671.
6. Kawada K, Hasegawa S, Hida K, et al. Risk factors for anastomotic leakage
after laparoscopic low anterior resection with DST anastomosis. Surg Endosc. 2014;28:2988–2995.
7. Roumen RM, Rahusen FT, Wijnen MH, et al. “Dog ear” formation after double stapled low anterior resection as a risk factor for anastomotic disruption. Dis Colon rectum. 2000;43:522–525.
8. Kawasaki K, Fujino Y, Kanemitsu K, et al. Experimental evaluation of the mechanical strength of stapling techniques. Surg Endosc. 2007;21:1796–1799.
9. Kuroyanagi H, Oya M, Ueno M, et al. Standardized technique of laparoscopic intracorporeal rectal transection and anastomosis for low anterior resection. Surg Endosc. 2008;22:557–561.
10. Kang CY, Halabi WJ, Chaudhry OO, et al. Risk factors for anastomotic leakage
after anterior resection for rectal cancer. JAMA Surg. 2013;148:65–71.
11. den Dulk M, Marijnen CA, Collette L, et al. Multicentre analysis of oncological and survival outcomes following anastomotic leakage
after rectal cancer surgery. Br J Surg. 2009;96:1066–1075.
12. Peeters KC, Tollenaar RA, Marijnen CA, et al. Risk factors for anastomotic failure after total mesorectal excision of rectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2005;92:211–216.
13. Paun BC, Cassie S, MacLean AR, et al. Postoperative complications following surgery for rectal cancer. Ann Surg. 2010;251:807–818.
14. Snijders HS, Wouters MW, van Leersum NJ, et al. Meta-analysis of the risk for anastomotic leakage
, the postoperative mortality caused by leakage in relation to the overall postoperative mortality. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2012;38:1013–1019.
15. Yamamoto S, Fujita S, Akasu T, et al. Risk factors for anastomotic leakage
after laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer using a stapling technique. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2012;22:239–243.
16. Akiyoshi T, Ueno M, Fukunaga Y, et al. Incidence of and risk factors for anastomotic leakage
after laparoscopic anterior resection with intracorporeal rectal transection and double-stapling technique anastomosis for rectal cancer. Am J Surg. 2011;202:259–264.
17. Hasegawa S, Nagayama S, Nomura A, et al. Multimedia article. Autonomic nerve-preserving total mesorectal excision in the laparoscopic era. Dis Colon Rectum. 2008;51:1279–1282.
18. Walker KG, Bell SW, Rickard MJ, et al. Anastomotic leakage
is predictive of diminished survival after potentially curative resection for colorectal cancer. Ann Surg. 2004;240:255–259.
19. Bell SW, Walker KG, Rickard MJ, et al. Anastomotic leakage
after curative anterior resection results in a higher prevalence of local recurrence. Br J Surg. 2003;90:1261–1266.
20. Hallbook O, Sjodahl R. Anastomotic leakage
and functional outcome after anterior resection of the rectum. Br J Surg. 1996;83:60–62.
21. Fielding LP, Stewart-Brown S, Blesovsky L, et al. Anastomotic integrity after operations for large-bowel cancer: a multicenter study. Br Med J. 1980;281:411–414.
22. Karanjia ND, Corder AP, Bearn P, et al. Leakage from stapled low anastomosis after total mesorectal excision for carcinoma of the rectum. Br J Surg. 1994;81:1224–1226.
23. Guillou PJ, Quirke P, Thorpe H, et al. Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multicentre, randomized controlled trial. Lancet. 2005;365:1718–1726.
24. Zhou ZG, Hu M, Li Y, et al. Laparoscopic versus open total mesorectal excision with anal sphincter preservation for low rectal cancer. Surg Endosc. 2004;18:1211–1215.
25. Hartley JE, Mehigan BJ, Qureshi AE, et al. Total mesorectal excision: assessment of the laparoscopic approach. Dis Colon Rectum. 2001;44:315–321.
26. Anthuber M, Fuerst A, Elser F, et al. Outcome of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer in 101 patients. Dis Colon Rectum. 2003;46:1047–1053.
27. Feliciotti F, Guerrieri M, Paganini AM, et al. Long-term results of laparoscopic versus open resections for rectal cancer for 124 unselected patients. Surg Endosc. 2003;17:1530–1535.
28. Asao T, Kuwano H, Nakamura J, et al. Use of a mattress suture to eliminate dog ears in double-stapled and triple-stapled anastomoses. Dis Colon Rectum. 2002;45:137–139.
29. Tang R, Chen HH, Wang YL, et al. Risk factors for surgical site infection after elective resection of the colon and rectum: a single-center prospective study of 2,809 consecutive patients. Ann Surg. 2001;234:181–189.
30. Eberl T, Jagoditsch M, Klingler A, et al. Risk factors for anastomotic leakage
after resection for rectal cancer. Am J Surg. 2008;196:592–598.
31. Martel G, Al-Suhaibani Y, Moloo H, et al. Neoadjuvant therapy and anastomotic leak after tumor-specific mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2008;51:1195–1201.
32. Jung SH, Yu CS, Choi PW, et al. Risk factors and oncologic impact of anastomotic leakage
after rectal cancer surgery. Dis Colon Rectum. 2008;51:902–908.
33. Law WI, Chu KW, Ho JW, et al. Risk factors for anastomotic leakage
after low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision. Am J Surg. 2000;179:92–96.
34. Moran BJ, Heald RJ. Risk factors for and management of anastomotic leakage
in rectal surgery. Colorectal Dis. 2001;3:135–137.
35. Alberts JC, Parvaiz A, Moran BJ. Predicting risk and diminishing the consequences of anastomotic dehiscence following rectal resection. Colorectal Dis. 2003;5:478–482.
Keywords:Copyright © 2017 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
double stapling technique; anastomotic leakage; colorectal surgery