Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Surgical Endoscopy 10/2014

Open Access 01.10.2014

Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic low anterior resection with DST anastomosis

verfasst von: Kenji Kawada, Suguru Hasegawa, Koya Hida, Kenjiro Hirai, Kae Okoshi, Akinari Nomura, Junichiro Kawamura, Satoshi Nagayama, Yoshiharu Sakai

Erschienen in: Surgical Endoscopy | Ausgabe 10/2014

Abstract

Background

Laparoscopic rectal surgery involving rectal transection and anastomosis with stapling devices is technically difficult. The aim of this study was to evaluate the risk factors for anastomotic leakage (AL) after laparoscopic low anterior resection (LAR) with double-stapling technique (DST) anastomosis.

Methods

This was a retrospective single-institution study of 154 rectal cancer patients who underwent laparoscopic LAR with DST anastomosis between June 2005 and August 2013. Patient-, tumor-, and surgery-related variables were examined by univariate and multivariate analyses. The outcome of interest was clinical AL.

Results

The overall AL rate was 12.3 % (19/154). In univariate analysis, tumor size (P = 0.001), operative time (P = 0.049), intraoperative bleeding (P = 0.037), lateral lymph node dissection (P = 0.009), multiple firings of the linear stapler (P = 0.041), and precompression before stapler firings (P = 0.008) were significantly associated with AL. Multivariate analysis identified tumor size (odds ratio [OR] 4.01; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.25–12.89; P = 0.02) and precompression before stapler firings (OR 4.58; CI 1.22–17.20; P = 0.024) as independent risk factors for AL. In particular, precompression before stapler firing tended to reduce the AL occurring in early postoperative period.

Conclusions

Using appropriate techniques, laparoscopic LAR with DST anastomosis can be performed safely without increasing the risk of AL. Important risk factors for AL were tumor size and precompression before stapler firings.
Hinweise
An erratum to this article can be found at http://​dx.​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00464-014-3696-2.
Total mesorectal excision (TME) was introduced by Heald in 1982 [1] and has been accepted as the standard technique for rectal surgery because it decreases local recurrence and improves functional results. Laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer was introduced in the 1990s, and has shown promising results. Laparoscopic low anterior resection (LAR) for rectal cancer is technically more difficult than laparoscopic colectomy for colon cancer because of the difficulties related to rectal transection and anastomosis within a narrow pelvic space. A higher incidence of positive circumferential margins after laparoscopic LAR was shown in an initial controlled trial [2], but an increasing number of recent studies have shown that laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer is safe and feasible [37].
Anastomotic leakage (AL) is the most common complication after rectal cancer surgery and can result in not only increased morbidity and mortality but also increased local recurrence and poorer prognosis [810]. The double-stapling technique (DST) has greatly facilitated intestinal reconstruction especially for anastomosis after LAR. Despite technical improvements and instrumental developments, recent studies have reported that the AL rate remains at 6.3–13.7 %; the most commonly reported rate is approximately 10 % [7, 9, 1114]. Risk factor analyses for AL after open LAR have been widely reported. However, a few studies have analyzed the risk factors for AL after laparoscopic LAR [1418]. In addition, the rates of protective diverting stoma, preoperative chemoradiotherapy, and TME in each study were not consistent, which might produce different results. In the present study, cases with protective diverting stoma or preoperative chemoradiotherapy were excluded from the analysis to investigate the pure risk factor for AL.
We previously reported that precompression before stapler firings is a critical factor for gaining successful staple formation in an animal model [19]. To our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate the effect of precompression before stapler firings in a clinical setting. The aim of the present study was to identify the risk factors associated with AL in a single institution where standardized laparoscopic LAR with DST anastomosis was performed.

Materials and methods

Study population

A total of consecutive 162 patients underwent elective laparoscopic LAR with DST anastomosis at Kyoto University Hospital between June 2005 and August 2013. Among those patients, eight patients were excluded because they had the following factors: a tumor histopathology other than adenocarcinoma (n = 1); construction of protective diverting stoma (n = 4); conversion to open surgery (n = 3). Finally, a total of 154 patients with primary rectal cancers were included in this retrospective study. No patients had preoperative radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy. The lower edge of the tumor was within 10 cm from the anal verge in all cases. Tumors located between the inferior margin of the second sacral vertebra and the peritoneal reflection were recorded as the upper rectum, while those located below the peritoneal reflection were recorded as the lower rectum [20]. The location of the tumor was determined by pelvic computed tomography, colonoscopy, and/or barium enema preoperatively and confirmed during surgery. The following patient-, tumor-, and surgery-related 25 variables were included in the analysis: patient-related [age, sex, body mass index (BMI), preoperative serum albumin and hemoglobin levels, preoperative chemotherapy], tumor-related (tumor location, maximum tumor diameter, UICC-TNM stage (7th edition) [21], lymphatic invasion, venous invasion), and surgery-related (operative time, intraoperative bleeding, level of inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) ligation, lateral lymph node dissection, simultaneous resection of other organs, number of cartridges of the linear stapler used for rectal transection, size of the circular stapler, height of the anastomosis from the anal verge, removal of crossing point where two staple lines intersected, precompression before stapler firings, placement of a pelvic drain, placement of a transanal tube). Written informed consent was obtained from all patients for the use of their clinical data in the future.

Surgical method

All procedures were conducted by well-experienced, board-certified laparoscopic colorectal surgeons at our institution. All patients received standard bowel preparation and antibiotic prophylaxis. The surgical technique was standardized, as described previously [22, 23]. High ligation of IMA was routinely performed, although low ligation of IMA (preservation of left colic artery) was performed depending on the condition of the patient’s blood vessel. The splenic flexure was mobilized totally or partially, depending on the bowel length. After mobilization of the left colon, tumor-specific mesorectal excision, including TME (according to the tumor location), was performed as the standard surgical technique. The main principle of this technique is sharp mesorectal dissection with a nerve-preserving technique. After clamping distal to the tumor to allow washout of the rectal stump, the rectum was transected using the linear stapler (Echelon 60 or Endo-Cutter, Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Cincinnati, OH, USA). After the surgical specimens were removed through the small incision, the anvil of the circular stapler was positioned in the proximal colon. The circular stapler (CDH, Ethicon) was inserted though the rectum, and then end-to-end DST anastomosis was completed intracorporeally. The “doughnut” created after anastomosis was inspected for completeness. Air-tightness was routinely tested by the transanal instillation of air. The height of anastomosis from the anal verge was measured by the digital rectal examination during anesthesia. Cases with protective diverting stoma were excluded. Cases converted to a transanal hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis were also excluded.

Definition of clinical anastomotic leakage

Clinical leakage signs were defined as abdominal pain, fever, pus, or fecal discharge from the pelvic drain, peritonitis, and pelvic abscess. All clinically suspicious symptoms were confirmed by digital rectal examination, sigmoidoscopy and radiographic examination (e.g., extravasation of endoluminally administered water-soluble contrast enema, abscess at the level of anastomosis, and fluid/air bubbles surrounding the anastomosis on computed tomography). The diagnosis of AL was done within 30 days after surgery. Using the proposed grading system [24], AL was classified into three grades: grade A required no active therapeutic intervention; grade B required active therapeutic intervention; and grade C required re-operation. We included symptomatic AL (grade B and C) for primary endpoint analysis. Asymptomatic AL (grade A) was not considered, because routine contrast enemas were not performed after surgery in our institution.

Statistical analysis

All statistical analyses were performed using the SPSS software, version 11.50 (SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL, USA). The Chi-square test, Fisher’s exact test, and Mann–Whitney U test were used for categorical variables comparison and analysis. All analyses were two-sided, and a P value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. To determine factors associated with AL, multivariate logistic regression analysis was used and factors with a P value of <0.05 were included in the model.

Results

Patients population

In total, consecutive 162 patients underwent elective laparoscopic LAR with end-to-end DST anastomosis. To investigate the pure risk factors of AL, patients with the following factors were excluded: a tumor histopathology other than adenocarcinoma (n = 1), construction of protective diverting ileostomy (n = 4), and conversion to open surgery (n = 3). Therefore, a total of 154 patients were enrolled for analysis. Patient characteristics are listed in Table 1. Among 154 patients, 111 (72.1 %) were male and 43 (27.9 %) were female. The median age was 66 years old (range 36–88). Their median BMI was 21.6 (range 10.5–30.0). The lower edge of the tumor was within 10 cm from the anal verge in all cases. A total of 101 patients (65.6 %) had the upper rectal cancer, and the remaining 53 patients (34.4 %) had the lower rectal cancer. Preoperative chemotherapy was performed in 25 patients (16.2 %). Preoperative chemoradiotherapy was not performed in this series because of construction of a protective diverting stoma.
Table 1
Patient and tumor characteristics (n = 154)
Characteristics
 
No. of Patients
Age (years)
 Median ± SD (range)
66 ± 9.9 (36–88)
 
BMI (kg/m2)
 Median ± SD (range)
21.6 ± 3.2 (10.5–30.0)
 
Sex
 Male
 
111
 Female
 
43
Location
 Upper
 
101
 Lower
 
53
UICC-TNM Stage
 0
 
2
 I
 
45
 II
 
61
 III
 
34
 IV
 
12
T category
 Tis
 
2
 T1
 
17
 T2
 
34
 T3
 
81
 T4
 
20
N category
 N0
 
110
 N1
 
26
 N2
 
18
M category
 M0
 
142
 M1
 
12
Tumor size (mm)
 Median ± SD
40 ± 19
 
Preoperative chemotherapy
 
25
Anastomotic leakage
 
19

Anastomotic leakage

Among 154 patients, symptomatic AL occurred in 19 patients (12.3 %): 15 were male and 4 were female. Their median BMI was 22.1 (range 17.0–27.3). The AL rate was 11.9 % (12/101) in patients with upper rectal cancer and 13.2 % (7/53) in patients with lower rectal cancer. AL requiring re-operation (grade C) occurred in 8 cases (5.2 %: 8/154); diverting stoma in 6 cases, Hartmann procedure in one case, and drainage in one case. AL not requiring re-operation (grade B) occurred in 11 cases (7.1 %: 11/154); treated by transanal drainage [25] in seven cases, and by antibiotics in four cases. The median time at which AL was confirmed was postoperative day (POD) 6 (range 2–15). Fistula formation with vesicle and vagina occurred in three cases and one case, respectively. The median time to hospital discharge was POD 45 (range 16–85), and there was no death related to AL (Table 2).
Table 2
Clinical features of 19 patients with AL
Characteristics
 
No. of Patients
Age (years)
Median (range)
65 (41–80)
 
BMI (kg/m2)
 Median (range)
22.1 (17.0–27.3)
 
Sex
 Male
 
15
 Female
 
4
Location
 Upper
 
12
 Lower
 
7
Detection time (day)
 Median (range)
POD 6 (2–15)
 
Grade
 B
 
12
 C
 
7
Treatment
 Diverting ileostomy
 
6
 Hartmann procedure
 
1
 Drainage
 
1
 Transanal drainage
 
7
 Antibiotics
 
4
Fistula
 Rectovesical fistula
 
3
 Rectovaginal fistula
 
1
Length of hospital stay
 Median (range)
POD 45 (16–85)
 
Mortality
 
0
On univariate analysis, symptomatic AL was significantly associated with tumor size (≥5.0 cm), operative time (≥5.0 h), operative bleeding (≥100 ml), lateral lymph node dissection, multiple firings of the linear stapler (≥3 firings), and precompression before stapler firings (Tables 3, 4). In addition, there was a tendency for placement of a transanal tube to reduce AL, with P value less than 0.10. No significant differences were found in terms of age, sex, BMI, preoperative serum albumin and hemoglobin levels, preoperative chemotherapy, tumor location, UICC-TNM stage, lymphatic invasion, venous invasion, level of IMA ligation, simultaneous resection of other organs, height of the anastomosis, removal of crossing point where two staple lines intersected, size of the circular stapler, and placement of a pelvic drain. In the precompression group, we secured more than 30-s intervals before each firing of the linear stapler, and more than 2-min interval before firing of the circular stapler, while we did not secure such enough precompression time in the non-precompression group. We previously reported that precompression before stapler firings is a critical factor for successful staple formation in an animal model [19]. Therefore, we analyzed the effect of precompression before stapler firings in this clinical setting, and found that it significantly reduced the AL rate (28.6 % in the non-precompression group vs. 8.7 % in the precompression group; P = 0.008).
Table 3
Univariate analysis of patient/tumor-related factors
Variables
Patients with AL
 
n
%
P value
Age (years)
  
0.43
 <70
15/107
14.0
 
 ≥70
4/47
8.5
 
Sex
  
0.59
 Male
15/111
13.5
 
 Female
4/43
9.3
 
BMI (kg/m2)
  
0.75
 <25
15/127
11.8
 
 ≥25
4/27
14.8
 
Albumin (g/dl)
  
0.59
 <3.5
0/8
0.0
 
 ≥3.5
19/146
13.0
 
Hemoglobin (g/dl)
  
1
 <11
2/15
13.3
 
 ≥11
17/139
12.2
 
Location
  
0.80
 Upper
12/101
11.9
 
 Lower
7/53
13.2
 
Tumor size (cm)
  
0.001
 <5.0
7/111
6.3
 
 ≥5.0
12/43
27.9
 
T category
  
1
 Tis, T1, T2
6/53
11.3
 
 T3, T4
13/101
12.8
 
N category
  
1
 N0
14/110
12.7
 
 N1, N2
5/44
11.4
 
UICC-TNM Stage
  
1
 I, II
13/103
12.6
 
 III, IV
6/51
11.8
 
Lymphatic invasion
  
1
 Negative
13/103
12.6
 
 Positive
6/51
11.8
 
Venous invasion
  
1
 Negative
8/67
11.9
 
 Positive
11/87
12.6
 
Preoperative chemotherapy
  
0.52
 No
15/129
11.6
 
 Yes
4/25
16.0
 
Table 4
Univariate analysis of surgery-related factors
Variables
Patients with AL
 
n
%
P value
Operative time (min)
  
0.049
 <300
7/90
7.8
 
 ≥300
12/64
18.7
 
Intraoperative bleeding (ml)
  
0.037
 <100
11/120
9.2
 
 ≥100
8/34
23.5
 
Ligation of IMA
  
0.29
 High ligation
15/133
11.3
 
 Low ligation
4/21
19.0
 
Lateral lymph node dissection
  
0.009
 No
15/146
10.3
 
 Yes
4/8
50.0
 
Simultaneous resection
  
0.60
 No
19/147
12.9
 
 Yes
0/7
0.0
 
Anastomosis level from anal verge (mm)
  
0.27
 <30
4/25
16.0
 
 ≥30
9/107
8.4
 
Number of cartridges for rectal transection
  
0.041
 1.2
13/131
9.9
 
 ≥3
6/23
26.0
 
Crossing point of staple lines
  
0.29
 Absent
11/106
10.4
 
 Present
8/46
17.4
 
Precompression before stapler firings
  
0.008
 No
8/28
28.6
 
 Yes
11/126
8.7
 
Diameter of circular stapler (mm)
  
1
 25
1/16
6.3
 
 29
13/121
10.7
 
Placement of a pelvic drain
  
0.18
 No
5/24
20.8
 
 Yes
14/130
10.8
 
Placement of a transanal tube
  
0.096
 No
6/26
23.1
 
 Yes
13/128
10.2
 
In the multivariate analysis including factors with a P value of ≤ 0.05, only tumor size (≥5.0 cm) and precompression before stapler firings remained significantly correlated with AL (Table 5; odds ratio [OR] 4.01; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.25–12.89; P = 0.02 and OR 4.58; CI 1.22–17.20; P = 0.024, respectively).
Table 5
Multivariate analysis of risk factors associated with AR
Variables
OR
95 % CI
P value
Tumor size (≥5 cm)
4.01
1.25–12.89
0.020
Operative time (≥300 min)
2.9
0.77–11.14
0.114
Intraoperative bleeding (≥100 ml)
0.88
0.23–3.31
0.849
Lateral lymph node dissection (yes)
3.67
0.63–21.34
0.148
Number of cartridges for rectal transection (≥3)
0.90
0.22–3.71
0.887
Precompression before stapler firings (no)
4.58
1.22–17.20
0.024
OR odds ratio, CI confidence interval
Based on the timing to be confirmed AL, 19 patients with developing AL were classified into two groups; the early leakage group (POD 5 or less; n = 8) and the late leakage group (POD more than 5; n = 11) (Table 6). Regarding the severity of AL, grade C occurred in 50 % (4/8) of the early leakage group, whereas in 36.3 % (4/11) of the late leakage group. Emergency operation was needed due to major leakage in 37.5 % (3/8) of the early leakage group, whereas in 18.2 % (2/11) of the late leakage group. Importantly, precompression before stapler firings tended to reduce the early leakage compared with the late leakage (25 % (2/8) and 81.8 % (9/11), respectively). In addition, multiple firings of the linear stapler (≥3 firings) also tended to be associated with the early leakage compared with the late leakage (62.5 % (5/8) and 9.1 % (1/11), respectively).
Table 6
Type of AL
Variables
Early leakage
(n = 8)
Late leakage
(n = 11)
Detection time
 Median ± SD, POD days
3.5 ± 1.4
10 ± 3.6
Grade
 B
4
7
 C
4
4
Emergency operation
 No
5
9
 Yes
3
2
Tumor size
 Median ± SD (mm)
63 ± 17
48 ± 17
Anastomosis level from anal verge
 Median ± SD (mm)
28 ± 16
42 ± 23
Operative time (min)
 <300
4
3
 ≥300
4
8
Intraoperative bleeding (ml)
 <100
4
7
 ≥100
4
4
Lateral lymph node dissection
 No
6
9
 Yes
2
2
Number of cartridges for rectal transection
 1.2
3
10
 ≥3
5
1
Precompression before stapler firings
 No
6
9
 Yes
2
2
Placement of a transanal tube
 No
4
2
 Yes
4
9

Discussion

AL is a major problem in patients who undergo operations for rectal cancers. It is associated with not only postoperative morbidity and mortality, but also local recurrence and patient’s survival [810]. Several risk factors, including age, sex, intraoperative bleeding, obesity, preoperative chemoradiotherapy, protective diverting stoma, pelvic drainage, tumor size, tumor location, and the level of anastomosis, have been reported to be associated with AL after open LAR [11, 2629]. In contrast, only a few studies have examined risk factors for AL after laparoscopic LAR [1418]. Several studies reported that laparoscopic surgery and open surgery for rectal cancer did not differ in terms of the AL rate [2, 3, 5, 30]. Laparoscopic rectal surgery provides an excellent operative field in a narrow pelvic space, and enables the preservation of autonomic nervous system more precisely. However, rectal transection using a laparoscopic linear stapler is relatively difficult when compared with open surgery because of the width and limited performance of the linear stapler. The devices and techniques used for laparoscopic LAR are different from those used for open LAR, which suggests that the risk factors for AL after laparoscopic LAR may also differ from those after open LAR. In the present study, multivariate analysis identified tumor size (≥5.0 cm) and precompression before stapler firings as independent risk factors of symptomatic AL after laparoscopic LAR with DST anastomosis (Table 5; P = 0.02 and 0.024, respectively). Tumor size is well known to be a risk factor for AL after LAR [29]. Pelvic space is limited, and so tumor size could adversely affect the ease of rectal transection and anastomosis. We previously reported that a sufficient amount of precompression time before stapler firings resulted in reduced intestinal wall thickness and proper staple formation in an animal model [19], which was in agreement with the result of this clinical study. This study provided the first evidence that precompression before stapler firings was associated with AL in a clinical setting. We assume that precompression time and proper cartridge selection according to the wall thickness were critical to achieve secure staple formation.
Previous studies reported that the use of more than three cartridges for rectal transection was a risk factor for AL after laparoscopic LAR [14, 15, 17]. When the number of stapler cartridges increases, there is a concern that an increased number of stapler firings may lead to small defects between the staple lines and, in turn, cause AL. In the present study, AL occurred in 26.0 % (6/23) of the cases in which more than three cartridges were used, whereas in only 9.9 % (13/131) of the cases in which one or two cartridges were used (Table 4; P = 0.041). In addition, the AL rate in cases with two cartridges was 10.9 % (11/101), whereas that in cases with one cartridge was 6.7 % (2/30). Although there was no statistical significance in multivariate analysis (Table 5), we assume that the efforts to reduce the number of linear stapler seem to be recommended.
Several surgical techniques for laparoscopic LAR have been proposed to decrease AL. Ito et al. [15] reported that vertical rectal transection through an additional suprapubic site was useful for avoiding multiple stapler firings and decreasing the AL rate. Kuroyanagi et al. [23] reported that rectal transection was performed using two cartridges in most cases, with harmonious operator-assistant movement. They insisted the technical efforts to remove the crossing point of staple lines, which might otherwise be the cause of AL. In the present study, we analyzed whether the remnant crossing point could increase the AL rate, and found that it was not significantly associated with AL (Table 4); AL occurred in 17.4 % (8/46) of cases with remnant crossing point, whereas in 10.4 % (11/106) of cases without remnant crossing point (P = 0.29). We assume that surgeons do not have to persist to remove the crossing point, especially when the crossing point is placed near the edge of the rectal stump and so removal of the crossing point is technically difficult. To our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate the effect of the remnant crossing point in a clinical setting.
Some studies recently reported that a transanal tube was important to prevent AL after LAR [31, 32], although other study reported that a transanal stent did not reduce AL [33]. In theory, a transanal tube decreases the intraluminal pressure around the anastomotic site, and protects the anastomosis from watery stool and flatus when gastrointestinal motility improves. In the present study, AL occurred in 10.2 % (13/128) of cases with a transanal tube, whereas in 23.1 % (6/26) of cases without a transanal tube (Table 4; P = 0.096). Although there was no statistical significance, we assume that a transanal tube seems to be useful to reduce the AL rate. We usually remove a transanal tube at 5–7 days after surgery.
A number of studies have reported that lower anastomosis level is an important risk factor for AL after LAR [27, 28]. However, the correlation between anastomosis level and AL was not statistically significant in the present study: AL rates for low anastomosis (height of the anastomosis from the anal verge was less than 3 cm) and high anastomosis (height of the anastomosis from the anal verge was 3 cm or more) were 16.0 % (4/25) and 8.4 % (9/107), respectively (Table 4; P = 0.27). In addition, the correlation between tumor location and AL was not significant (Table 3; P = 0.80). Although there was no statistical significance, the height of the anastomosis or the tumor location can reflect technical difficulties of laparoscopic LAR. All surgeries in the present study were conducted by well-experienced, board-certified laparoscopic colorectal surgeons. This minimized the risk of bias potentially associated with the early phase of the learning curve of surgeons, and with any inter-institutional variability in a multi-institutional trial.
There is still debate as to whether the creation of diverting stoma reduces AL. A recent randomized controlled study showed that the creation of diverting stoma reduced the incidence and clinical significance of AL [34]. A considerable amount of retrospective studies have also described the beneficial effect of a diverting stoma on AL [11, 35, 36]. On the other hand, there are some studies that the creation of a diverting stoma did not reduce the AL rate [37, 38]. However, it is generally agreed that the creation of a diverting stoma can reduce the incidence of the severe complications that AL can cause. In the present study, cases with a diverting stoma were excluded from the analysis, because the creation of a diverting stoma seems to effectively reduce the clinical significance of AL and could be considered in high-risk patients.
In conclusion, we demonstrated that tumor size and precompression before stapler firings were independent risk factors for AL after laparoscopic LAR with DST anastomosis. In addition, precompression before stapler firings and multiple firings of the linear stapler tended to be associated with the AL occurring in early postoperative period. This study provides interesting data in the effort to reduce AL. However, because of the retrospective nature, the limited number of patients, and the likely multifactorial nature of AL, it is hard to draw robust conclusions. The outcomes of this study could not be corrected in a case-mix adjusted comparison, since this requires a large amount of cases to prevent over-fitting. Further studies including a large multi-institutional randomized controlled study are required to identify risk factors of AL and to develop the approaches to reduce this risk for patients with rectal cancers who undergo laparoscopic LAR.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank medical staffs and residents of Kyoto University Hospital gastrointestinal surgery for their participation in this study. We could not have completed the study without their diligence and support.

Disclosures

Drs. Kenji Kawada, Suguru Hasegawa, Koya Hida, Kenjiro Hirai, Kae Okoshi, Akinari Nomura, Junichiro Kawamura, Satoshi Nagayama and Yoshiharu Sakai have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.

Unsere Produktempfehlungen

Die Chirurgie

Print-Titel

Das Abo mit mehr Tiefe

Mit der Zeitschrift Die Chirurgie erhalten Sie zusätzlich Online-Zugriff auf weitere 43 chirurgische Fachzeitschriften, CME-Fortbildungen, Webinare, Vorbereitungskursen zur Facharztprüfung und die digitale Enzyklopädie e.Medpedia.

Bis 30. April 2024 bestellen und im ersten Jahr nur 199 € zahlen!

e.Med Interdisziplinär

Kombi-Abonnement

Für Ihren Erfolg in Klinik und Praxis - Die beste Hilfe in Ihrem Arbeitsalltag

Mit e.Med Interdisziplinär erhalten Sie Zugang zu allen CME-Fortbildungen und Fachzeitschriften auf SpringerMedizin.de.

Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Heald RJ, Husband EM, Ryall RD (1982) The mesorectum in rectal cancer surgery—the clue to pelvic recurrence? Br J Surgery 69:613–616CrossRef Heald RJ, Husband EM, Ryall RD (1982) The mesorectum in rectal cancer surgery—the clue to pelvic recurrence? Br J Surgery 69:613–616CrossRef
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Guillou PJ, Quirke P, Thorpe H, Walker J, Jayne DG, Smith AM, Heath RM, Brown JM, MRC CLASICC trial group (2005) Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 365:1718–1726PubMedCrossRef Guillou PJ, Quirke P, Thorpe H, Walker J, Jayne DG, Smith AM, Heath RM, Brown JM, MRC CLASICC trial group (2005) Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 365:1718–1726PubMedCrossRef
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Zhou ZG, Hu M, Li Y, Lei WZ, Yu YY, Cheng Z, Li L, Shu Y, Wang TC (2004) Laparoscopic versus open total mesorectal excision with anal sphincter preservation for low rectal cancer. Surg Endosc 18:1211–1215PubMedCrossRef Zhou ZG, Hu M, Li Y, Lei WZ, Yu YY, Cheng Z, Li L, Shu Y, Wang TC (2004) Laparoscopic versus open total mesorectal excision with anal sphincter preservation for low rectal cancer. Surg Endosc 18:1211–1215PubMedCrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Lelong B, Bege T, Esterni B, Guiramand J, Turrini O, Moutardier V, Magnin V, Monges G, Pernoud N, Blache JL, Giovannini M, Delpero JR (2007) Short-term outcome after laparoscopic or open restorative mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a comparative cohort study. Dis Colon Rectum 50:176–183PubMedCrossRef Lelong B, Bege T, Esterni B, Guiramand J, Turrini O, Moutardier V, Magnin V, Monges G, Pernoud N, Blache JL, Giovannini M, Delpero JR (2007) Short-term outcome after laparoscopic or open restorative mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a comparative cohort study. Dis Colon Rectum 50:176–183PubMedCrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Lujan J, Valero G, Hernandez Q, Sanchez A, Frutos MD, Parrilla P (2009) Randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic and open surgery in patients with rectal cancer. Br J Surg 96:982–989PubMedCrossRef Lujan J, Valero G, Hernandez Q, Sanchez A, Frutos MD, Parrilla P (2009) Randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic and open surgery in patients with rectal cancer. Br J Surg 96:982–989PubMedCrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Milsom JW, de Oliveira O, Jr Trencheva KI, Pandey S, Lee SW, Sonoda T (2009) Long-term outcomes of patients undergoing curative laparoscopic surgery for mid and low rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 52:1215–1222PubMedCrossRef Milsom JW, de Oliveira O, Jr Trencheva KI, Pandey S, Lee SW, Sonoda T (2009) Long-term outcomes of patients undergoing curative laparoscopic surgery for mid and low rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 52:1215–1222PubMedCrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Kang CY, Halabi WJ, Chaudhry OO, Nguyen V, Pigazzi A, Carmichael JC, Mills S, Stamos MJ (2013) Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after anterior resection for rectal cancer. JAMA Surg 148:65–71PubMedCrossRef Kang CY, Halabi WJ, Chaudhry OO, Nguyen V, Pigazzi A, Carmichael JC, Mills S, Stamos MJ (2013) Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after anterior resection for rectal cancer. JAMA Surg 148:65–71PubMedCrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Branagan G, Finnis D, Wessex Colorectal Cancer Audit Working Group (2005) Prognosis after anastomotic leakage in colorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 48:1021–1026PubMedCrossRef Branagan G, Finnis D, Wessex Colorectal Cancer Audit Working Group (2005) Prognosis after anastomotic leakage in colorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 48:1021–1026PubMedCrossRef
9.
Zurück zum Zitat den Dulk M, Marijnen CA, Collette L, Putter H, Påhlman L, Folkesson J, Bosset JF, Rödel C, Bujko K, van de Velde CJ (2009) Multicentre analysis of oncological and survival outcomes following anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer surgery. Br J Surg 96:1066–1075CrossRef den Dulk M, Marijnen CA, Collette L, Putter H, Påhlman L, Folkesson J, Bosset JF, Rödel C, Bujko K, van de Velde CJ (2009) Multicentre analysis of oncological and survival outcomes following anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer surgery. Br J Surg 96:1066–1075CrossRef
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Mirnezami A, Mirnezami R, Chandrakumaran K, Sasapu K, Sagar P, Finan P (2011) Increased local recurrence and reduced survival from colorectal cancer following anastomotic leak: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 253:890–899PubMedCrossRef Mirnezami A, Mirnezami R, Chandrakumaran K, Sasapu K, Sagar P, Finan P (2011) Increased local recurrence and reduced survival from colorectal cancer following anastomotic leak: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 253:890–899PubMedCrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Peeters KC, Tollenaar RA, Marijnen CA, Klein Kranenbarg E, Steup WH, Wiggers T, Rutten HJ, van de Velde CJ, Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group (2005) Risk factors for anastomotic failure after total mesorectal excision of rectal cancer. Br J Surg 92:211–216PubMedCrossRef Peeters KC, Tollenaar RA, Marijnen CA, Klein Kranenbarg E, Steup WH, Wiggers T, Rutten HJ, van de Velde CJ, Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group (2005) Risk factors for anastomotic failure after total mesorectal excision of rectal cancer. Br J Surg 92:211–216PubMedCrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Paun BC, Cassie S, MacLean AR, Dixon E, Buie WD (2010) Postoperative complications following surgery for rectal cancer. Ann Surg 251:807–818PubMedCrossRef Paun BC, Cassie S, MacLean AR, Dixon E, Buie WD (2010) Postoperative complications following surgery for rectal cancer. Ann Surg 251:807–818PubMedCrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Snijders HS, Wouters MW, van Leersum NJ, Kolfschoten NE, Henneman D, de Vries AC, Tollenaar RA, Bonsing BA (2012) 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 38:1013–1019PubMedCrossRef Snijders HS, Wouters MW, van Leersum NJ, Kolfschoten NE, Henneman D, de Vries AC, Tollenaar RA, Bonsing BA (2012) 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 38:1013–1019PubMedCrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Park JS, Choi GS, Kim SH, Kim HR, Kim NK, Lee KY, Kang SB, Kim JY, Lee KY, Kim BC, Bae BN, Son GM, Lee SI, Kang H (2013) Multicenter analysis of risk factors for anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic rectal cancer excision: the Korean laparoscopic colorectal surgery study group. Ann Surg 257:665–671PubMedCrossRef Park JS, Choi GS, Kim SH, Kim HR, Kim NK, Lee KY, Kang SB, Kim JY, Lee KY, Kim BC, Bae BN, Son GM, Lee SI, Kang H (2013) Multicenter analysis of risk factors for anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic rectal cancer excision: the Korean laparoscopic colorectal surgery study group. Ann Surg 257:665–671PubMedCrossRef
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Ito M, Sugito M, Kobayashi A, Nishizawa Y, Tsunoda Y, Saito N (2008) Relationship between multiple numbers of stapler firings during rectal division and anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic rectal resection. Int J Colorectal Dis 23:703–707PubMedCrossRef Ito M, Sugito M, Kobayashi A, Nishizawa Y, Tsunoda Y, Saito N (2008) Relationship between multiple numbers of stapler firings during rectal division and anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic rectal resection. Int J Colorectal Dis 23:703–707PubMedCrossRef
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Yamamoto S, Fujita S, Akasu T, Inada R, Moriya Y, Yamamoto S (2012) Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer using a stapling technique. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 22:239–243PubMedCrossRef Yamamoto S, Fujita S, Akasu T, Inada R, Moriya Y, Yamamoto S (2012) Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer using a stapling technique. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 22:239–243PubMedCrossRef
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Kim JS, Cho SY, Min BS, Kim NK (2009) Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic intracorporeal colorectal anastomosis with a double stapling technique. J Am Coll Surg 209:694–701PubMedCrossRef Kim JS, Cho SY, Min BS, Kim NK (2009) Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic intracorporeal colorectal anastomosis with a double stapling technique. J Am Coll Surg 209:694–701PubMedCrossRef
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Akiyoshi T, Ueno M, Fukunaga Y, Nagayama S, Fujimoto Y, Konishi T, Kuroyanagi H, Yamaguchi T (2011) 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 202:259–264PubMedCrossRef Akiyoshi T, Ueno M, Fukunaga Y, Nagayama S, Fujimoto Y, Konishi T, Kuroyanagi H, Yamaguchi T (2011) 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 202:259–264PubMedCrossRef
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Nakayama S, Hasegawa S, Nagayama S, Kato S, Hida K, Tanaka E, Itami A, Kubo H, Sakai Y (2011) The importance of precompression time for secure stapling with a linear stapler. Surg Endosc 25:2382–2386PubMedCrossRef Nakayama S, Hasegawa S, Nagayama S, Kato S, Hida K, Tanaka E, Itami A, Kubo H, Sakai Y (2011) The importance of precompression time for secure stapling with a linear stapler. Surg Endosc 25:2382–2386PubMedCrossRef
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum (2009) Japanese classification of colorectal carcinoma, English 2nd ed. Kanehara, Tokyo Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum (2009) Japanese classification of colorectal carcinoma, English 2nd ed. Kanehara, Tokyo
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Sobin LH, Gospodarowicz MK, Wittekind Ch (eds) (2009) International union against cancer (UICC) TNM classification of malignant tumors, 7th edn. Wiley-Blackwell, West Sussex Sobin LH, Gospodarowicz MK, Wittekind Ch (eds) (2009) International union against cancer (UICC) TNM classification of malignant tumors, 7th edn. Wiley-Blackwell, West Sussex
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Hasegawa S, Nagayama S, Nomura A, Kawamura J, Sakai Y (2008) Multimedia article. Autonomic nerve-preserving total mesorectal excision in the laparoscopic era. Dis Colon Rectum 51:1279–1282PubMedCrossRef Hasegawa S, Nagayama S, Nomura A, Kawamura J, Sakai Y (2008) Multimedia article. Autonomic nerve-preserving total mesorectal excision in the laparoscopic era. Dis Colon Rectum 51:1279–1282PubMedCrossRef
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Kuroyanagi H, Oya M, Ueno M, Fujimoto Y, Yamaguchi T, Muto T (2008) Standardized technique of laparoscopic intracorporeal rectal transection and anastomosis for low anterior resection. Surg Endosc 22:557–561PubMedCrossRef Kuroyanagi H, Oya M, Ueno M, Fujimoto Y, Yamaguchi T, Muto T (2008) Standardized technique of laparoscopic intracorporeal rectal transection and anastomosis for low anterior resection. Surg Endosc 22:557–561PubMedCrossRef
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Rahbari NN, Weitz J, Hohenberger W, Heald RJ, Moran B, Ulrich A, Holm T, Wong WD, Tiret E, Moriya Y, Laurberg S, den Dulk M, van de Velde C, Büchler MW (2010) Definition and grading of anastomotic leakage following anterior resection of the rectum: a proposal by the International Study Group of Rectal Cancer. Surgery 147:339–351PubMedCrossRef Rahbari NN, Weitz J, Hohenberger W, Heald RJ, Moran B, Ulrich A, Holm T, Wong WD, Tiret E, Moriya Y, Laurberg S, den Dulk M, van de Velde C, Büchler MW (2010) Definition and grading of anastomotic leakage following anterior resection of the rectum: a proposal by the International Study Group of Rectal Cancer. Surgery 147:339–351PubMedCrossRef
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Okoshi K, Masano Y, Hasegawa S, Hida K, Kawada K, Nomura A, Kawamura J, Nagayama S, Yoshimura T, Sakai Y (2013) Efficacy of transanal drainage for anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic low anterior resection of the rectum. Asian J Endosc Surg 6:90–95PubMedCrossRef Okoshi K, Masano Y, Hasegawa S, Hida K, Kawada K, Nomura A, Kawamura J, Nagayama S, Yoshimura T, Sakai Y (2013) Efficacy of transanal drainage for anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic low anterior resection of the rectum. Asian J Endosc Surg 6:90–95PubMedCrossRef
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Rullier E, Laurent C, Garrelon JL, Michel P, Saric J, Parneix M (1998) Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after resection of rectal cancer. Br J Surg 85:355–358PubMedCrossRef Rullier E, Laurent C, Garrelon JL, Michel P, Saric J, Parneix M (1998) Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after resection of rectal cancer. Br J Surg 85:355–358PubMedCrossRef
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Yeh CY, Changchien CR, Wang JY, Chen JS, Chen HH, Chiang JM, Tang R (2005) Pelvic drainage and other risk factors for leakage after elective anterior resection in rectal cancer patients: a prospective study of 978 patients. Ann Surg 241:9–13PubMedPubMedCentral Yeh CY, Changchien CR, Wang JY, Chen JS, Chen HH, Chiang JM, Tang R (2005) Pelvic drainage and other risk factors for leakage after elective anterior resection in rectal cancer patients: a prospective study of 978 patients. Ann Surg 241:9–13PubMedPubMedCentral
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Jung SH, Yu CS, Choi PW, Kim DD, Park IJ, Kim HC, Kim JC (2008) Risk factors and oncologic impact of anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 51:902–908PubMedCrossRef Jung SH, Yu CS, Choi PW, Kim DD, Park IJ, Kim HC, Kim JC (2008) Risk factors and oncologic impact of anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 51:902–908PubMedCrossRef
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Eberl T, Jagoditsch M, Klingler A, Tschmelitsch J (2008) Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after resection for rectal cancer. Am J Surg 196:592–598PubMedCrossRef Eberl T, Jagoditsch M, Klingler A, Tschmelitsch J (2008) Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after resection for rectal cancer. Am J Surg 196:592–598PubMedCrossRef
30.
Zurück zum Zitat Aziz O, Constantinides V, Tekkis PP, Athanasiou T, Purkayastha S, Paraskeva P, Darzi AW, Heriot AG (2006) Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 13:413–424PubMedCrossRef Aziz O, Constantinides V, Tekkis PP, Athanasiou T, Purkayastha S, Paraskeva P, Darzi AW, Heriot AG (2006) Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 13:413–424PubMedCrossRef
31.
Zurück zum Zitat Xiao L, Zhang WB, Jiang PC, Bu XF, Yan Q, Li H, Zhang YJ, Yu F (2011) Can transanal tube placement after anterior resection for rectal carcinoma reduce anastomotic leakage rate? A single-institution prospective randomized study. World J Surg 35:1367–1377PubMedCrossRef Xiao L, Zhang WB, Jiang PC, Bu XF, Yan Q, Li H, Zhang YJ, Yu F (2011) Can transanal tube placement after anterior resection for rectal carcinoma reduce anastomotic leakage rate? A single-institution prospective randomized study. World J Surg 35:1367–1377PubMedCrossRef
32.
Zurück zum Zitat Zhao WT, Hu FL, Li YY, Li HJ, Luo WM, Sun F (2013) Use of a transanal drainage tube for prevention of anastomotic leakage and bleeding after anterior resection for rectal cancer. World J Surg 37:227–232PubMedCrossRef Zhao WT, Hu FL, Li YY, Li HJ, Luo WM, Sun F (2013) Use of a transanal drainage tube for prevention of anastomotic leakage and bleeding after anterior resection for rectal cancer. World J Surg 37:227–232PubMedCrossRef
33.
Zurück zum Zitat Bülow S, Bulut O, Christensen IJ, Harling H, Rectal Stent Study Group (2006) Transanal stent in anterior resection does not prevent anastomotic leakage. Colorectal Dis 8:494–496PubMedCrossRef Bülow S, Bulut O, Christensen IJ, Harling H, Rectal Stent Study Group (2006) Transanal stent in anterior resection does not prevent anastomotic leakage. Colorectal Dis 8:494–496PubMedCrossRef
34.
Zurück zum Zitat Matthiessen P, Hallböök O, Rutegård J, Simert G, Sjödahl R (2007) Defunctioning stoma reduces symptomatic anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection of the rectum for cancer: a randomized multicenter trial. Ann Surg 246:207–214PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral Matthiessen P, Hallböök O, Rutegård J, Simert G, Sjödahl R (2007) Defunctioning stoma reduces symptomatic anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection of the rectum for cancer: a randomized multicenter trial. Ann Surg 246:207–214PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
35.
Zurück zum Zitat Eriksen MT, Wibe A, Norstein J, Haffner J, Wiig JN, Norwegian Rectal Cancer Group (2005) Anastomotic leakage following routine mesorectal excision for rectal cancer in a national cohort of patients. Colorectal Dis 7:51–57PubMedCrossRef Eriksen MT, Wibe A, Norstein J, Haffner J, Wiig JN, Norwegian Rectal Cancer Group (2005) Anastomotic leakage following routine mesorectal excision for rectal cancer in a national cohort of patients. Colorectal Dis 7:51–57PubMedCrossRef
36.
Zurück zum Zitat Lefebure B, Tuech JJ, Bridoux V, Costaglioli B, Scotte M, Teniere P, Michot F (2008) Evaluation of selective defunctioning stoma after low anterior resection for rectal cancer. Int J Colorectal Dis 23:283–288PubMedCrossRef Lefebure B, Tuech JJ, Bridoux V, Costaglioli B, Scotte M, Teniere P, Michot F (2008) Evaluation of selective defunctioning stoma after low anterior resection for rectal cancer. Int J Colorectal Dis 23:283–288PubMedCrossRef
37.
Zurück zum Zitat Enker WE, Merchant N, Cohen AM, Lanouette NM, Swallow C, Guillem J, Paty P, Minsky B, Weyrauch K, Quan SH (1999) Safety and efficacy of low anterior resection for rectal cancer: 681 consecutive cases from a specialty service. Ann Surg 230:544–552PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral Enker WE, Merchant N, Cohen AM, Lanouette NM, Swallow C, Guillem J, Paty P, Minsky B, Weyrauch K, Quan SH (1999) Safety and efficacy of low anterior resection for rectal cancer: 681 consecutive cases from a specialty service. Ann Surg 230:544–552PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
38.
Zurück zum Zitat Matthiessen P, Hallböök O, Andersson M, Rutegård J, Sjödahl R (2004) Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after anterior resection of the rectum. Colorectal Dis 6:462–469PubMedCrossRef Matthiessen P, Hallböök O, Andersson M, Rutegård J, Sjödahl R (2004) Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after anterior resection of the rectum. Colorectal Dis 6:462–469PubMedCrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic low anterior resection with DST anastomosis
verfasst von
Kenji Kawada
Suguru Hasegawa
Koya Hida
Kenjiro Hirai
Kae Okoshi
Akinari Nomura
Junichiro Kawamura
Satoshi Nagayama
Yoshiharu Sakai
Publikationsdatum
01.10.2014
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Surgical Endoscopy / Ausgabe 10/2014
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-014-3564-0

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 10/2014

Surgical Endoscopy 10/2014 Zur Ausgabe

Wie erfolgreich ist eine Re-Ablation nach Rezidiv?

23.04.2024 Ablationstherapie Nachrichten

Nach der Katheterablation von Vorhofflimmern kommt es bei etwa einem Drittel der Patienten zu Rezidiven, meist binnen eines Jahres. Wie sich spätere Rückfälle auf die Erfolgschancen einer erneuten Ablation auswirken, haben Schweizer Kardiologen erforscht.

Hinter dieser Appendizitis steckte ein Erreger

23.04.2024 Appendizitis Nachrichten

Schmerzen im Unterbauch, aber sonst nicht viel, was auf eine Appendizitis hindeutete: Ein junger Mann hatte Glück, dass trotzdem eine Laparoskopie mit Appendektomie durchgeführt und der Wurmfortsatz histologisch untersucht wurde.

Mehr Schaden als Nutzen durch präoperatives Aussetzen von GLP-1-Agonisten?

23.04.2024 Operationsvorbereitung Nachrichten

Derzeit wird empfohlen, eine Therapie mit GLP-1-Rezeptoragonisten präoperativ zu unterbrechen. Eine neue Studie nährt jedoch Zweifel an der Notwendigkeit der Maßnahme.

Ureterstriktur: Innovative OP-Technik bewährt sich

19.04.2024 EAU 2024 Kongressbericht

Die Ureterstriktur ist eine relativ seltene Komplikation, trotzdem bedarf sie einer differenzierten Versorgung. In komplexen Fällen wird dies durch die roboterassistierte OP-Technik gewährleistet. Erste Resultate ermutigen.

Update Chirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

S3-Leitlinie „Diagnostik und Therapie des Karpaltunnelsyndroms“

Karpaltunnelsyndrom BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Das Karpaltunnelsyndrom ist die häufigste Kompressionsneuropathie peripherer Nerven. Obwohl die Anamnese mit dem nächtlichen Einschlafen der Hand (Brachialgia parästhetica nocturna) sehr typisch ist, ist eine klinisch-neurologische Untersuchung und Elektroneurografie in manchen Fällen auch eine Neurosonografie erforderlich. Im Anfangsstadium sind konservative Maßnahmen (Handgelenksschiene, Ergotherapie) empfehlenswert. Bei nicht Ansprechen der konservativen Therapie oder Auftreten von neurologischen Ausfällen ist eine Dekompression des N. medianus am Karpaltunnel indiziert.

Prof. Dr. med. Gregor Antoniadis
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“

Radiusfraktur BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Das Webinar beschäftigt sich mit Fragen und Antworten zu Diagnostik und Klassifikation sowie Möglichkeiten des Ausschlusses von Zusatzverletzungen. Die Referenten erläutern, welche Frakturen konservativ behandelt werden können und wie. Das Webinar beantwortet die Frage nach aktuellen operativen Therapiekonzepten: Welcher Zugang, welches Osteosynthesematerial? Auf was muss bei der Nachbehandlung der distalen Radiusfraktur geachtet werden?

PD Dr. med. Oliver Pieske
Dr. med. Benjamin Meyknecht
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“

Appendizitis BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Inhalte des Webinars zur S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“ sind die Darstellung des Projektes und des Erstellungswegs zur S1-Leitlinie, die Erläuterung der klinischen Relevanz der Klassifikation EAES 2015, die wissenschaftliche Begründung der wichtigsten Empfehlungen und die Darstellung stadiengerechter Therapieoptionen.

Dr. med. Mihailo Andric
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.