A prospective, controlled study of prophylactic drainage after colonic anastomoses. Is prophylactic pelvic drainage useful after elective rectal or anal anastomosis? A multicenter controlled randomized trial. French Association for Surgical Research. A prospective randomised study of drains in infra-peritoneal rectal anastomoses. Prophylactic abdominal drainage after elective colonic resection and suprapromontory anastomosis: a multicenter study controlled by randomization. French Associations for Surgical Research. Mechanical bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery with primary intraperitoneal anastomosis by a single surgeon: interim analysis of a prospective single-blinded randomized trial. Mechanical bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery: a multicentre randomised trial. Similar outcome after colonic pouch and side-to-end anastomosis in low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a prospective randomized trial. The influence of mechanical bowel preparation in elective lower colorectal surgery. Comparison of defecatory function after colonic J-pouch anastomosis and straight anastomosis for stapled low anterior resection: results of a prospective randomized trial.
A prospective, randomized, controlled trial was designed to study the influence of a corrugated latex drain on anastomotic integrity, wound infection, and respiratory complications after elective colonic resections above the pelvic peritoneum. Sixty patients entered the trial; 28 were drained and 32 undrained. Three patients in the undrained group died soon after surgery of causes unrelated to their colon anastomoses. There were no other differences in the incidence of postoperative complications in the two groups. When an anastomosis leaked, neither feces nor pus emerged via the drain. It is concluded that while the drains did not increase the incidence of postoperative complications, neither did they accomplish the purpose for which they were inserted. If, in addition, the economic cost of drainage is considered, it would seem that there is no advantage in inserting prophylactic drains after colonic anastomoses and their routine use needs to be reconsidered. We investigated the role of drainage in the prevention of complications after elective rectal or anal anastomosis in the pelvis. Anastomotic leakage after colorectal resection is more prevalent when the anastomosis is in the distal or infraperitoneal pelvis than in the abdomen. The benefit of pelvic drains versus their potential harm has been questioned. Drain-related complications include (1) those possibly benefiting from drainage (leakage, intra-abdominal infection, bleeding) and (2) those possibly caused by drainage (wound infection or hernia, intestinal obstruction, fistula).
                Between September 1990 and June 1995, 494 patients (249 men and 245 women), mean age 66 +/- 15 (range 15 to 101) years, with either carcinoma, benign tumor, colonic Crohn's disease, diverticular disease of the sigmoid colon, or another disorder located anywhere from the right colon to the midrectum undergoing resection followed by rectal or anal anastomosis were randomized to undergo either drainage (n = 248) with 2 multiperforated 14F suction drains or no drainage (n = 246). The primary end point was the number of patients with one or more postoperative drain-related complications. Secondary end points included severity of these complications as assessed by the rate of related repeat operations and associated deaths as well as extra-abdominally related morbidity and mortality.
                After withdrawal of 2 patients (1 in each group) both groups were comparable with regard to preoperative characteristics and intraoperative findings. The overall leakage rate was 6.3% with no significant difference between those with or without drainage. There were 18 deaths (3.6%), 8 (3.2%) in those with drainage and 10 (4%) in those without drainage. Five patients with anastomotic leakage died (1%), 3 of whom had drainage. There were 32 repeat operations (6.5%) for anastomotic leakage 11 in the group with drainage and 4 in the group with no drainage. The rate of these and the other intra-abdominal and extra-abdominal complications did not differ significantly between the 2 groups.
                Prophylactic drainage of the pelvic space does not improve outcome or influence the severity of complications. Although increasing evidence suggests that prophylactic drainage after intra-peritoneal colorectal anastomoses is unnecessary, drains for infra-peritoneal rectal anastomoses, where the leak rate is higher, are widely employed still. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of prophylactic drainage after anastomosis below the peritoneal reflection. All patients attending one specialist unit over an 8-month period for elective rectal cancer resection with an infra-peritoneal anastomosis were randomised to drainage or no drainage. The incidence of anastomotic leak and complications specific to the drain as well as other complications were compared. Fifty-nine patients were analysed (31 with drain). Twenty-five of the drained and 16 of the no-drain patients had a defunctioning stoma (p=ns). The groups were comparable for demographic data, operation and anastomotic height from the anal verge. There were three leaks (10%) in the drain group and five leaks (18%) in the no-drain group (p=ns). There were 2 (7%) patients in each group with a clinical leak. There were no specific drain complications and the incidence of other complications was similar in both groups. In conclusion, this study supports the contention that there is no difference in morbidity with or without the use of a drain for infra-peritoneal anastomoses. Only 4 controlled trials have investigated whether prophylactic abdominal drainage was of value after colonic resection. None have been able to find any statistically significant difference, but the number of patients was small and the beta error risk was high.
                To compare patients who underwent abdominal drainage with those who did not for the rate and severity of complications after elective colonic resection followed immediately by anastomosis of the suprapromontory colon and to compare suction drains with nonsuction drains.
                Between September 1990 and June 1995, 319 patients (135 men and 184 women), whose mean age was 67 years (range, 22-95 years), with carcinoma, benign tumors, or colitis, located anywhere between the ascending and sigmoid colons, were included in the study. Patients were comparable for demographic characteristics, except that there were more patients with ascites in the group that did not undergo abdominal drainage (P<.02).
                After 2 protocol violations, 156 patients were randomized to the abdominal drainage group and 161 to the no abdominal drainage group. All 317 anastomoses were tested for airtightness intraoperatively and repaired if leakage was found (n=71), and all patients with anastomoses received a routine diatrizoate sodium enema to detect infraclinical leakage.
                The postoperative complications possibly influenced by drainage included (1) deep complications for which drainage can lead to early diagnosis, such as generalized or localized peritonitis, intraabdominal hemorrhage, or hematoma; (2) complications believed to be enhanced by drainage, such as an operative wound (an abscess, disruption, or incisional hernia) or pulmonary (microatelectasis) and intestinal obstructions; and (3) complications directly due to the drains, such as ulcerations leading to fistulae, hemorrhages, drainage tract infections, difficulty in removal, intra-abdominal retention, and incisional disruptions. Subsidiary end points were the severity of these complications as assessed by the number of related subsequent operations and deaths.
                Twenty-six patients overall (8%) had postoperative complications possibly influenced by drainage (9% in the group that underwent abdominal drainage and 8% in the group that did not). This difference was not statistically significant (P<.90). One patient had a fistula directly imputable to drainage. There was no difference between suction and nonsuction drainage (P<.90).
                Routine abdominal drainage after colonic resection and immediate anastomosis decreases neither the rate nor the severity of anastomotic leakage. It can, occasionally, be detrimental. We report an interim analysis of a prospective single-blinded randomized trial designed to investigate whether preoperative mechanical bowel preparation influences the rate of surgical-site infection and anastomotic failure after elective colorectal surgery with primary intraperitoneal anastomosis performed by a single surgeon. Patients scheduled to undergo an elective colorectal procedure with a primary intraperitoneal anastomosis were randomized to receive either oral polyethylene glycol lavage solution and enemas (group A) or no preparation (group B). Surgical-site infection and anastomotic failure were investigated. Of 97 patients included, 48 were assigned to group A and 49 to group B. Twelve (12.4%) developed wound infections, six in each group (12.5 vs. 12.2%; NS). Intra-abdominal sepsis was only seen in group A (n = 3, 6.3%). Anastomotic failure occurred in four patients in group A (8.3%) vs. two patients in group B (4.1%) (NS). The overall complication rate in group A was 27.1%, vs. 16.3% in group B. The number needed to harm was 9.3. Our interim analysis of a prospective single-blinded randomized trial suggests that a surgeon may have the same or even worse outcomes when mechanical bowel preparation is routinely used for colorectal surgery with primary intraperitoneal anastomosis. Mechanical bowel preparation is a common practice before elective colorectal surgery. We aimed to compare the rate of anastomotic leakage after elective colorectal resections and primary anastomoses between patients who did or did not have mechanical bowel preparation.
                We did a multicentre randomised non-inferiority study at 13 hospitals. We randomly assigned 1431 patients who were going to have elective colorectal surgery to either receive mechanical bowel preparation or not. Patients who did not have mechanical bowel preparation had a normal meal on the day before the operation. Those who did were given a fluid diet, and mechanical bowel preparation with either polyethylene glycol or sodium phosphate. The primary endpoint was anastomotic leakage, and the study was designed to test the hypothesis that patients who are given mechanical bowel preparation before colorectal surgery do not have a lower risk of anastomotic leakage than those who are not. The median follow-up was 24 days (IQR 17-34). We analysed patients who were treated as per protocol. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00288496.
                77 patients were excluded: 46 who did not have a bowel resection; 21 because of missing outcome data; and 10 who withdrew, cancelled, or were excluded for other reasons. The rate of anastomotic leakage did not differ between both groups: 32/670 (4.8%) patients who had mechanical bowel preparation and 37/684 (5.4%) in those who did not (difference 0.6%, 95% CI -1.7% to 2.9%, p=0.69). Patients who had mechanical bowel preparation had fewer abscesses after anastomotic leakage than those who did not (2/670 [0.3%] vs 17/684 [2.5%], p=0.001). Other septic complications, fascia dehiscence, and mortality did not differ between groups.
                We advise that mechanical bowel preparation before elective colorectal surgery can safely be abandoned. To compare a colonic J-pouch or a side-to-end anastomosis after low-anterior resection for rectal cancer with regard to functional and surgical outcome.
                A complication after restorative rectal surgery with a straight anastomosis is low-anterior resection syndrome with a postoperatively deteriorated anorectal function. The colonic J-reservoir is sometimes used with the purpose of reducing these symptoms. An alternative method is to use a simple side-to-end anastomosis.
                One-hundred patients with rectal cancer undergoing total mesorectal excision and colo-anal anastomosis were randomized to receive either a colonic pouch or a side-to-end anastomosis using the descending colon. Surgical results and complications were recorded. Patients were followed with a functional evaluation at 6 and 12 months postoperatively.
                Fifty patients were randomized to each group. Patient characteristics in both groups were very similar regarding age, gender, tumor level, and Dukes' stages. A large proportion of the patients received short-term preoperative radiotherapy (78%). There was no significant difference in surgical outcome between the 2 techniques with respect to anastomotic height (4 cm), perioperative blood loss (500 ml), hospital stay (11 days), postoperative complications, reoperations or pelvic sepsis rates. Comparing functional results in the 2 study groups, only the ability to evacuate the bowel in <15 minutes at 6 months reached a significant difference in favor of the pouch procedure.
                The data from this study show that either a colonic J-pouch or a side-to-end anastomosis performed on the descending colon in low-anterior resection with total mesorectal excision are methods that can be used with similar expected functional and surgical results. This study evaluates the effects of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) on anastomosis below the peritoneal verge and questions the influence of MBP on anastomotic leakage in combination with a diverting ileostomy in lower colorectal surgery.
                In a previous large multicenter randomized controlled trial MBP has shown to have no influence on the incidence of anastomotic leakage in overall colorectal surgery. The role of MBP in lower colorectal surgery with or without a diverting ileostomy remains unclear.
                This study is a subgroup analysis of a prior multicenter (13 hospitals) randomized trial comparing clinical outcome of MBP versus no MBP. Primary end point was the occurrence of anastomotic leakage and secondary endpoints were septic complications and mortality.
                Total of 449 Patients underwent a low anterior resection with a primary anastomosis below the peritoneal verge. The incidence of anastomotic leakage was 7.6% for patients who received MBP and 6.6% for patients who did not. Significant risk factors for anastomotic leakage were the American Society of Anesthesiologists-classification (P = 0.005) and male gender (P = 0.007). Of total, 48 patients received a diverting ileostomy during initial surgery; 27 patients received MBP and 21 patients did not. There were no significant differences regarding septic complications and mortality between both groups.
                MBP has no influence on the incidence of anastomotic leakage in low colorectal surgery. Furthermore, omitting MBP in combination with a diverting ileostomy has no influence on the incidence of anastomotic leakage, septic complications, and mortality rate. Although defecatory function after low anterior resection for rectal cancer is reported to be better following colonic J-pouch than straight anastomosis, few prospective randomized trials comparing the two forms of anastomosis have been reported. We performed a prospective randomized trial comparing straight anastomosis with colonic J-pouch anastomosis both clinically and physiologically in patients undergoing stapled low colorectal anastomosis.
                A total of 42 consecutive patients were intraoperatively randomized to undergo either straight anastomosis or colonic J-pouch anastomosis. Clinical defecatory function was evaluated by a questionnaire answered preoperatively, then 6 and 12 months postoperatively. Anorectal physiological assessment was also carried out before surgery, then 12 months postoperatively.
                The clinical defecatory function assessed 6 months and 12 months after surgery did not differ between the two groups. However, while the length of high-pressure zone was significantly shortened, and (neo)rectal capacity was significantly reduced postoperatively in the straight group, none of these physiological parameters were significantly altered in the pouch group.
                Although the aim of colonic J-pouch to preserve reservoir function was physiologically achieved, the improvement in clinical defecatory function was not significant. Thus, further prospective studies are needed to confirm the functional superiority of colonic J-pouch anastomosis for stapled low colorectal anastomosis after low anterior resection.
There is insufficient evidence showing that routine drainage after colorectal anastomoses prevents anastomotic and other complications.