Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_927_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
31.08.2026
Размер:
31 Мб
Скачать

DIETARY COMPOSITION AND DELIVERY

Options for feeding surgical patients include standard hospital-based oral diets, oral supplements, enteral liquid formula diets, and paren­teral nutrition.
COMPLICATIONS 441
initiation of standard diets, when compared with clear liquid diets, has been reported aer elective colorectal surgery. As the result of the wide variety of food intolerances and preferences among patients of diering ethnic, religious, and socioeconomic groups, the ingestion of approximately one third of the standard hospital diet is generally sucient for hospital discharge. Appetite and food intake usually increase signicantly when the patient is discharged to his or her usual environment. 
Hospital-Based Diets
e composition and array of hospital-based diets has changed little in the past 40 years. Diets relevant to patients undergoing colorectal surgery include clear liquid, regular, and low residue.
Clear Liquid Diet
Clear liquid diets contain water, broth, clear juices, Popsicles, and gel­atin. ey are relatively distasteful and provide minimal nutritional benet. In some patients, these diets help stimulate swallowing in the early postoperative state. Similar to other types of oral intake, these diets should not be prescribed if the patient is abnormally distended because of the potentiation of gastric distension with swallowed air. 
Regular Diet
Regular diets are used to provide nutrition for patients without spe­cial needs. ey are well tolerated by most postoperative patients who have some return of appetite and the absence of contraindica­tions to oral/enteral feeding (Box 83-2). Patient preference for early
TABLE 83-1: Daily Caloric and Protein Prescription
Based on Body Mass Index
BMI <30 BMI 30-40 BMI >40
Calories 25-30 kcal/kg
ABW
Protein 1.2-2.0 kg ABW
ABW, Actual body weight; BMI, body mass index; IBW, ideal body weight. Modied from McClave SA, Martindale RG, Vanek VW, etal. Guidelines for the provision and assessment of nutrition support therapy in the adult critically ill patient: Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) and American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (A.S.P.E.N.). JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2009;33:277-316.
BOX 83-2: Contraindications to Enteral Nutrition
Severe abdominal distension, vomiting Intolerance to enteral nutrition High-output gastrointestinal stula(s) Hemodynamic instability/vasopressors Intestinal ischemia Severe sepsis
22-25 kcal/kg
IBW
>2.0g/kgIBW >2.5g/kgIBW
22-25 kcal/kg
IBW
Low-Residue Diet
Low-residue diets are formulated similarly to a low-ber diet but typically limit components that increase bowel activity, such as milk products. ey contain less than 7 to 10 g of dietary ber per day. 
Oral Supplements
Oral supplements are similar in formulation to, although more pal­atable than, enteral tube feeds. Oral supplements provide a high caloric density of 1.0 to 2.0 kcal/mL. ey are prescribed for patients with decreased intake of food. Prescription of oral supplements has improved quality of life, nutritional status, and intake and has decreased infection rates in postoperative patients. 
Liquid Formula Diets
Liquid formula diets used for EN dier in osmolarity, caloric density, electrolytes, vitamins, and ber contents. In general, formulas are cat­egorized as standard, concentrated, predigested, and immune modu­lating (Table 83-2). Standard formulas are relatively inexpensive and meet the basic nutritional needs of most postoperative CRS and criti­cally ill patients. Concentrated EN formulations are hyperosmolar with high caloric densities and may be advantageous in patients who require volume restriction. Predigested formulas are valuable in cer­tain malabsorptive situations such as short bowel syndrome and in patients with chyle leaks. Immune-modulating formulas are supple­mented with arginine, glutamine, nucleic acid, omega-3 fatty acids, and antioxidants and are more costly than standard formulations. Some studies support use of immune-modulating formulas in surgi­cal patients in the intensive care unit. Although no signicant reduc­tion in mortality occurs, decreased length of hospital stay and fewer infections occur in certain patient populations. Recent evidence sup­ports increasing use of these diets (see the Immunonutrition section). 
Enteral Nutrition
EN is feeding either orally or by tube directly into the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. For purpose of this discussion, EN is restricted to delivery of liquid formula diets by tube. If patients are unable to ingest nutri­ents and the GI tract is functioning safely, EN is the preferred method of nutrient delivery. Despite a lack of large, prospectively randomized trials, enteral feeding is, in general, preferred over PN. When com­pared with PN, EN is more physiologic, promotes growth of intes­tinal mucosa, and decreases infectious complications by preserving
TABLE 83-2: Categories of Liquid Formula Diets
Standard Concentrated Predigested Immune Modulating
Caloric density ≥1.0 kcal/mL 1.2-2.0 kcal/mL 1.2-1.5 kcal/mL 1.5 kcal/mL
Advantages or uses Meets nutritional needs of
most postoperative and critically ill patients
Volume restriction Malabsorption,
chyle leaks
Surgical intensive care unit Mechanically ventilated, reduced infectious
morbidity and length of stay
NutritioNal Support iN ColoreCtal Surgery442
Free water decit = 0.6 × current total body weight(kg)×
[(current sodium/140) 1]
immune function. e benets of EN on immune function have been demonstrated in animal models and suggested in human studies as well. e oral route is preferred, but feeding by tube may be necessary to meet caloric needs in patients with the inability to ingest sucient calories by mouth.
Further comparative advantages of EN include improving gut mucosal integrity, preserving gut-associated lymphoid tissue, reduc­ing inammation, improving wound healing, decreasing the rate of infections and septic morbidity, and reducing costs (Box 83-3). Contraindications to postoperative EN are shown in Box 83-2 and include moderate to severe abdominal distension, vomiting, intes­tinal obstruction, high-output GI stulas, hemodynamic instability, intestinal ischemia, and severe sepsis.
Prior to starting postoperative oral intake, our practice is to assess each patient for absence of severe distention, nausea, eructations,
BOX 83-3: Advantages of Enteral Nutrition
Improves gut mucosal integrity Preserves gut-associated lymphoid tissue Reduces inammation Improves wound healing Reduces rate of infections and septic morbidity Decreases hyperglycemic episodes
Clinical signs/symptoms of
worsening ileus (POD 0-1):
Increasing abdominal pain
Nausea
Eructations
Hiccups Bloating
Vomiting
Moderate abdominal distension
hiccups, bloating, and vomiting. Once clear liquids are tolerated, patients are advanced to either a regular or low-residue diet as shown in Figure 83-1.
Patients receiving EN may experience hypernatremia as a result of a decit of free water. is can be calculated and replaced through the GI tract:
Rapid repletion of free water decit can lead to detrimental neu­rologic consequences, and thus serum sodium should be lowered slowly. Treatment goals are to lower serum sodium by 10 mEq/L in 24 hours.
Access for EN
Access for EN includes placement of nasogastric (NG) and naso­enteric (NE) tubes, in addition to tube gastrostomy and tube enter­ostomy. NG or NE feeding tubes can be placed at the bedside. An abdominal radiograph should be performed to conrm location of the tube before initiating feeding. Innovations for tube placement include devices with electromagnetic tips to allow guidance, use of uoroscopy, and bedside placement using a corkscrew maneuver. A greater than 95% accuracy of placement has been reported using these techniques. If patients are at high risk for aspiration, postpy­loric feeding can be used; however, supportive data are conicting.
Yes No
Remain NPO
Reassess clinically
Vomiting NPO
Insert nasogastric tube
for gastric
decompression
Yes No
Advance to
clear liquid diet and
follow progress as
noted above
Yes No
Resolution of severe
ileus or abdominal
discomfort
Advance to
clear liquid diet
Diet Intolerance
Advance to
regular or
low-residue
diet
Remain NPO until
resolution of
abdominal
symptoms
FIGURE 83-1 Oral diet advancement. NPO, Nothing by mouth; POD, postoperative day.
COMPLICATIONS 443
Postoperative regurgitation, aspiration, and pneumonia are reduced in some studies but not in others. Percutaneous endoscopic gastros­tomy tubes are another option if it is anticipated that enteral feeds will continue beyond 7 to 10 days aer surgery.
If a prolonged postoperative course is anticipated, a gastrostomy or jejunostomy feeding tube should be placed prophylactically at the time of the colorectal operation. A jejunostomy is preferred over a gastrostomy if a newly created gastric anastomosis (e.g., excision of gastrocolic or gastrojejunal stula) or gastroparesis is a concern.
Complications of enteric tube access and feeding include insertion of the feeding tube into the respiratory tract, perforation and or obstruc­tion of the esophagus, stomach, or intestine, bowel necrosis, and death. 
Early Postoperative Feeding: “Fast Track”
Early studies in canine models by Moss and colleagues suggested the importance of early postoperative nutrition. ey demonstrated that the colonic anastomoses in fed animals had signicantly higher bursting pressures than those in fasting animals aer colon surgery.
Postoperative ileus occurs frequently aer gastrointestinal sur­gery. Traditionally, oral feeds are started only aer resolution of ileus and return of bowel function, meaning that the patient fasts until he or she passes atus or has a bowel movement. e rationale of this “traditional feeding” protocol is that oral intake before spontaneous resolution of ileus can lead to increased abdominal discomfort, dis­tention, nausea, and vomiting, with a potential risk for aspiration.
Protocols for early feeding aer surgery have been developed in an eort to minimize fasting time, enhance recovery, expedite return of bowel function, and decrease postoperative length of hospital stay. Such enhanced recovery aer surgery programs incorporate a combi­nation of perioperative nonopioid analgesia to prevent ileus, removal of the NG tube, expeditious postoperative mobilization, and early oral feeding. Nutrition initiated on postoperative day 1, or as soon as the patient desires food, decreases risk of infection and length of hospital stay, at the expense of increased bloating and vomiting. In fact, nutri­tional supplementation before and immediately aer surgery eec­tively supports the patient undergoing colon resection, as well as the malnourished surgical patient. In a meta-analysis of randomized con­trolled studies involving 198 patients undergoing CRS, Eskicioglu and colleagues found signicantly decreased hospital stay and postopera­tive complications in patients following an enhanced recovery aer surgery protocol. us early initiation of NS in patients undergoing CRS—which, in the malnourished patient, could start in the preop­erative period—provides important nourishment, decreases periop­erative complication rates, and decreases length of hospital stay. 
Parenteral Nutrition
PN is the provision of partial or total nutrients by vein. Standard PN mixtures include dextrose, amino acids (essential and nonessential), sodium, potassium, chloride, magnesium, calcium, phosphorus, mul­tivitamins, and trace elements. Electrolytes can be adjusted based on the patient’s needs as indicated by a metabolic panel. As mentioned, lipid is oen prescribed to supply approximately 20% to 30% of the total calories. A decision-making approach for using postoperative PN is shown in Figure 83-2. PN is indicated in the severely mal­nourished patient in whom the gut cannot be used safely for feeding. ASPEN guidelines recommend starting PN aer the rst 7 days of hospitalization in critically ill patients, based on the balance of risks associated with the use of PN and deterioration of nutrition status. To our knowledge, no evidence-based recommendations are available specically for patients undergoing CRS and receiving PN. We pre­scribe PN on postoperative days 5 to 7 if enteral feeding is not feasible.
e Veterans Aairs Total Parenteral Nutrition cooperative study in 1991 demonstrated the eectiveness of preoperative treatment with total PN in a nonrandomized subgroup analysis of severely mal­nourished patients. is study, however, also showed signicantly increased infectious complication rates of PN in the larger, random­ized cohort. In retrospect, the causes of infectious complications were likely due to overfeeding and increased hospitalization in the PN group. More recent safe practice guidelines have signicantly reduced infection rates for central venous catheters, which may pro­mote earlier initiation of parenteral nutritional support in patients who do not tolerate enteral feeds. As mentioned, most evidence sup­ports the preferential use of enteral compared with parenteral nutri­tion in patients with a functioning GI tract.
Access for PN
PN is a hyperosmolar solution that causes venous sclerosis in smaller peripheral veins; therefore, it is typically delivered into a central vein. Delivery of PN is achieved through a triple lumen, peripher­ally inserted central catheter, or tunneled catheter. Complications with PN include catheter-related injuries, pneumothorax, and line­associated infections. 
Concomitant EN and PN
EN and PN are complementary, not competitive. In some conditions the nutritional goals are to both stimulate gut growth and function
Major colorectal
operation
Return of bowel function within 5-7 days;
contingent upon preoperative nutritional status
NoYes
Advance to regular
diet as tolerated
Yes
FIGURE 83-2 Decisions for use of postoperative parenteral nutrition (PN). NPO, Nothing by mouth.
Remain
NPO Initiate PN
Return of bowel function
No
Continue PN
NutritioNal Support iN ColoreCtal Surgery444
while still meeting total nutrient needs. ese patients can be given both EN and PN while slowly transitioning from PN to EN. 
Overfeeding
Overfeeding can signicantly harm the patient undergoing CRS, par­ticularly when he or she is severely stressed or acutely ill. Overfeed-
ingleads tohyperglycemia(serum glucose >300 mg/dL), resulting
in immunosuppression and nosocomial infections. Nutrition alone cannot convert a catabolic patient into an anabolic state. Weight maintenance, not gain, is the overriding goal when feeding severely ill surgical patients. e caloric prescription is increased only when the source of catabolism (e.g., pneumonia and an abdominal abscess) is treated appropriately as signied by return of appetite and normal­ization of temperature, heart rate, and laboratory indices. When this occurs, improvement in the metabolic milieu supports anabolism and leads to improved nutrient utilization and weight gain. 

NEW DIRECTIONS

Despite the lack of conrmatory data in patients undergoing CRS, new directions in perioperative nutritional care include immunonu­trition and preoperative carbohydrate loading.
Immunonutrition
Immunonutrition is the perioperative delivery of immunostimulatory diets, consisting of a combination of arginine, omega-3 fatty acids, and nucleotides. Marimuthu and colleagues recently reported a meta­analysis of 26 randomized trials involving 2496 patients in which immunonutrition was compared with standard EN. ese investiga­tors found lower morbidity and a shorter length of stay in patients undergoing surgery for GI cancer in the immunonutrition group. e higher cost of immunonutrition was examined by blinded economists with data gathered from randomized controlled trials. ey con­cluded that the reduced postoperative infectious complications with immunonutrition led to a substantial savings of health care resources. 
Preoperative Carbohydrate Loading
Body glycogen stores are depleted rapidly during normal preoperative fasts. is depletion in turn contributes to a reduction of lean body mass. Carbohydrate loading prior to surgery is analogous to a long dis­tance runner preparing for a marathon. Investigators have proposed adding 800 mL of an oral glucose-based solution on the day before sur­gery and 400 mL approximately 4 hours before surgery. Benets include improved postoperative glucose control, reduction in insulin resis­tance, enhanced return of bowel function, and improved food intake without increased risk of aspiration or other anesthetic complications. 

SUMMARY

Malnutrition occurs in selected patients undergoing colorectal sur­gery, particularly those with either IBD or advanced colorectal can­cer. Severe malnutrition delays postoperative recovery, increases complications, and prolongs hospital stay. Initiation of nutritional support in the preoperative period benets the severely malnour­ished patient; however, its use must be tempered with prolonged hospitalization and increased costs. Scant evidence exists to suggest that patients with mild or borderline malnutrition benet from either preoperative or postoperative nutritional support.
When adhering to appropriate guidelines, oral or enteral feeding
within 6 to 48 hours aer surgery is associated with fewer surgical
complications, a shorter length of hospital stay, and improved nitro­gen balance when compared with those not receiving such feedings. Parenteral nutrition is an important adjunct for patients who can­not meet their nutrient requirements using oral or enteral nutritional supplementation. It is oen used as a “bridge” to enteral and oral feeding. With the exception of the severely malnourished patient, PN is rarely indicated within the rst week aer surgery.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We gratefully acknowledge Maureen E. Rombeau, MA, for editorial assistance.

S u g g e S t e d R e a d i n g

Andersen HK, Lewis SJ, omas S. Early enteral nutrition within 24h of colo-
rectal surgery versus later commencement of feeding for postoperative complications. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;4: CD004080.
ASPEN Board of Directors and the Clinical Guidelines Task Force. Guidelines
for the use of parenteral and enteral nutrition in adult and pediatric pa­tients. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2002;26S:1SA–138SA.
August DA, Huhmann MB. ASPEN clinical guidelines: nutrition support
therapy during adult anticancer treatment and in hematopoietic cell trans­plantation. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2009;33:472–500.
Awad S, Vadhan KK, Ljungqvist O. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled
trials on preoperative oral carbohydrate treatment in elective surgery. Clin Nutr. 2013;32(1):34–44.
Braga M, Ljungqvist O, Soeters P, Fearon K, Weimann A, Bozzetti F. ESPEN
Guidelines on Parenteral Nutrition: surgery. Clin Nutr. 2009;28(4):378–
386.
Burden S, Todd C, Hill J, etal. Pre-operative nutrition in patients undergoing
surgery on the digestive system. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;(11): CD008879.
Casaer M, Mesotten D, Hermans G, etal. Early versus late parenteral nutrition
in critically ill adults. New Engl J Med. 2011;365:506–517.
Chen Y, Liu BL, Shang B, etal. Nutrition support in surgical patients with
colorectal cancer. World J Gastroenterol. 2011;17:1779–1786.
Eskicioglu C, Fobes SS, Aarts MA, et al. Enhanced recovery aer surgery
(ERAS) programs for patients having colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. J Gastrointest Surg. 2009;13:2321–2329.
Heyland DK, Novak F, Drover JW, etal. Should immunonutrition become
routine in critically ill patients? A systematic review of the evidence. JAMA. 2001;286:944–953.
Huhmann MB, August DA. Perioperative nutrition support in cancer pa-
tients. Nutr Clin Pract. 2012;27:586–592.
Lewis SJ, Egger M, Sylvester PA, etal. Early enteral feeding versus “nil by
mouth” aer gastrointestinal surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled trials. BMJ. 2001;323(7316):773–776.
Makela JT, Kiviniemi H, Laitinen S. Risk factors for anastomotic leakage aer
le sided colorectal resection with rectal anastomosis. Dis Colon Rectum. 2003;46:653–660.
Marimuthu K, Varadhan KK, Ljungqvist O, etal. A meta-analysis of the eect
of combinations of immune modulating nutrients on outcome in patients undergoing major gastrointestinal surgery. Ann Surg. 2012;255:1060–
1068.
McClave SA, Martindale RG, Vanek VW, et al. Guidelines for the provision
and assessment of nutrition support therapy in the adult critically ill pa­tient: Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) and American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (A.S.P.E.N. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2009;33:277–316.
Nedeau A, Rombeau JL. Nutrition, digestion and absorption. In: Porrett P,
Frederick J, Roses R, Kaiser L, eds. e Surgical Review: An Integrated Ba- sic and Clinical Science Study Guide. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Wil­liams & Wilkins; 2010:31–46.
Veterans Aairs Total Parenteral Nutrition Cooperative Study Group. Perio-
perative total parenteral nutrition in surgical patients. New Engl J Med. 1991;325:525–532.
Wagner IJ, Rombeau JL. Nutritional support of surgical patients with inam-
matory bowel disease. Surg Clin North Am. 2011;91:787–803.
Warren J, Bhalla V, Cresci G. Postoperative diet advancement: surgical dogma
vs evidence-based medicine. Nutr Clin Pract. 2011;26:115–125.
P 
M  S
Dan Geisler and C. Neal Ellis


BACKGROUND

Sepsis is uncontrolled infection—a potentially fatal condition mani­fested by tachycardia, leukocytosis, fever, and hypotension. In the United States, the overall incidence is estimated to be more than 1.1 million cases per year at an annual cost of $24.3 billion. More than 70% of septic patients have associated comorbidities, and more than 60% of episodes occur in persons aged 65 years and older. Despite advances in antimicrobial agents, supportive care, and surgical man­agement, the in-hospital mortality rate ranges from 14.7% to 29.9%.
Conditions that can progress to abdominal sepsis include perforated peptic ulcer, diverticulitis, cholecystitis, appendicitis, pancreatitis, bowel ischemia, trauma, and deep space abscesses. Specic colorectal-related causes of sepsis include anastomotic leaks, perforation from diverticu­litis, malignant or benign obstructions, inammatory strictures, entero­cutaneous stula and stula-in-ano, postoperative intra-abdominal abscesses, and unrecognized bowel injury, especially in patients under­going a repeat operation. Treatment of sepsis by control of the septic focus, prompt institution of antimicrobial agents, and goal-directed uid therapy is usually successful. is chapter presents the principles upon which eective treatment of abdominal sepsis is based. 

PREVENTION

Defining Risk
Smoking, poorly controlled diabetes mellitus, radiation exposure, immunodeciency, steroid and other immunosuppressant use, extremes of age, hypothermia, malnutrition, shock, and a lengthy preopera­tive inpatient course are all signicant risk factors for sepsis in surgical patients. Wound status is also important. e National Research Council categorized wounds into four classes in an eort to better predict infec­tion rates for closed wounds (Table 84-1). Wounds classied as contami- nated or dirty along with any surgery lasting longer than 2 hours, any intra-abdominal procedure, and the presence of three or more associated medical diagnoses at the time of discharge were found to be independent risk factors for surgical site infections. e number of risk factors present helps to better predict the risk of postoperative infection. 
Preventive Measures
Bowel Preparation
e use of mechanical bowel preparation prior to elective bowel resec­tion aims to decrease the total bacterial load and minimize the pos­sibility of fecal contamination of the abdomen while improving the
technical ease of the operation. However, numerous recent studies have shown similar perioperative infection rates with and without the use of bowel preparation. For emergency operations, mainly obstructions, intraoperative colonic lavage is eective in clearing retained stool. 
Prophylactic Antibiotics
e timely administration of perioperative parenteral antibiot­ics (given at the time of induction) aimed at anaerobes and gram­negative rods is geared toward achieving high systemic antibiotic levels at the time of greatest risk for contamination. Repeat dosing is encouraged for longer cases and is determined by the half-life of the antibiotic chosen. A common choice for patients undergoing bowel resection is ampicillin-sulbactam (Unasyn), 3 g administered via intravenous piggyback upon the call to the operating room, with repeat dosing at 3-hour intervals, or long-acting ertapenem (Invanz). 
Intact Anastomosis
A safe, tension-free, well-vascularized anastomosis is the most criti­cal part of any colorectal restorative resection. Anastomotic dehis­cence is a primary cause of postoperative intra-abdominal sepsis. erefore, techniques that decrease the risk of anastomotic leakage will also decrease the risk of postoperative abdominal sepsis.
Tension-Free Anastomosis
For le colectomy or anterior resection, tension-free anastomosis is best achieved through full mobilization of the splenic exure, high ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery, and transection of the infe­rior mesenteric vein at the level of the ligament of Treitz. For ileal J pouch anal anastomoses, the terminal ileum must be fully mobi­lized by dissecting the retroperitoneum to the level of the duodenum. Occasionally, division of the ileocolic artery is necessary to achieve a tension-free anastomosis. 
Well-Vascularized Anastomosis
Good blood supply is critical in minimizing most anastomotic com­plications (leak, stricture, or outright failure). Although many new technological advances have been made in assessing the blood ow to an anastomosis (e.g., FIREFLY and SPY), seeing pulsatile ow from the cut edge of the mesentery and bowel is sucient. 
Consideration for Diversion
An astute surgeon may prevent an anastomotic leak by opting to avoid primary anastomosis when patient or procedural risk for
445
Prevention and ManageMent of SePSiS446
TABLE 84-1 National Research Council Classification of Surgical Wounds
Class Definition Example Risk of Wound Infection
Clean Atraumatic
No entry into respiratory, urinary,
gastrointestinal, or biliary tracts No inammation No break in sterile technique
Breast biopsy 1%–3%
Clean–contaminated Controlled entry into respiratory, urinary,
gastrointestinal, or biliary tracts Minor break in sterile technique
Contaminated Traumatic wound, gross spillage from
gastrointestinal tract Acute nonpurulent infection Major break in sterile technique
Dirty Existing purulent infection
Perforated viscus
anastomotic dehiscence is high. Here one or both bowel ends are brought out as stomas. A second strategy, using a diverting stoma proximal to a primary anastomosis, will facilitate the management of an anastomotic leak and minimize the severity of the ensuing sepsis. An anastomosis should be avoided or at least diverted in the settings of radiation exposure/damage, hypotension, vasopressors, high-dose corticosteroids, recent use of biologic immunosuppressive agents and certain chemotherapeutic agents, preoperative albumin levels lower than 3.0 g/dL, intraoperative blood loss of 500 mL or more, opera­tive time of 200 minutes or more, and/or the need for intraoperative transfusion. 
Appropriate Use of Drains
Although there is no role for the routine use of drains in the pre­vention of intra-abdominal sepsis, drains are frequently needed in its management. A well-placed drain, oen placed with CT or ultra­sound guidance, along with appropriate antibiotic coverage, will sometimes prevent the need for a patient to undergo re-exploration for postoperative sepsis. Once cultures results are obtained, antibiotic coverage may be tailored accordingly. 
MANAGEMENT OF INTRA­ABDOMINAL SEPSIS
e principle treatment of intra-abdominal sepsis is physiologic sup­port of the patient and control of the source. Although source control is denitive, resuscitation and physiologic support stabilize the patient and convert an emergency operation into a semi-elective procedure, optimizing outcome. Goals of resuscitation include restoration of intravascular volume with maintenance of end-organ perfusion and initiation of broad-spectrum antimicrobial therapy. Many institutions have adopted standardized sepsis order sets that streamline resus­citative protocols for the initial management. Standardized sepsis protocols have been shown to improve patient outcomes in multiple settings.
Scoring systems, such as the Acute Physiological and Chronic Health Evaluation score (APACHE II) and Mannheim Peritoni­tis Index (MPI), can be used to guide management. Categorizing patients into dierent risk groups helps predict patient outcome, selects patients for intensive care, and determines operative risk, thus facilitating the decision for damage control or a denitive procedure.
Elective bowel resection 5%–10%
Appendectomy for acute appendicitis 15%
Hartmann procedure for perforated
diverticulitis
40%
Goal-Directed Hemodynamic Support
e Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines recommend that uid chal­lenges in patients with suspected hypovolemia begin with more than 1 L of crystalloids administered over a period of 30 minutes. Although a colloid volume of 300 to 500 mL is an acceptable alternative to crys­talloid, this option is more expensive, with no signicant dierence in the initial resuscitation. When uid challenge fails to restore adequate arterial pressure and organ perfusion, clinicians should use vasopres­sor agents, such as norepinephrine, to maintain adequate blood pres­sure and optimize organ perfusion. Initial empiric, broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy should be started immediately, because the patient needs immediate attention, and culture and susceptibility data can require up to 48 hours before they are available for a more detailed analysis. Once the causative pathogen has been identied, antibi­otic therapy should be the most appropriate antimicrobial agent that covers the pathogen and is safe and cost-eective. If candidemia is a likely pathogen, empiric antifungal therapy should be added to the treatment regimen. Intravenous hydrocortisone should be avoided in adult patients with septic shock if adequate uid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy are able to restore hemodynamic stability. If the patient remains hemodynamically unstable despite resuscitation and vasopressors, a continuous infusion of intravenous hydrocortisone at a dose of 200 mg per day can be added. 
Evaluation
Studies to identify the source of the sepsis should not be initiated until resuscitation is successful and physiologic parameters are stabilized. If resuscitation is not successful, urgent surgery may be indicated to identify and control the cause of the sepsis (i.e., a damage control laparotomy). CT scans have become routine in the assessment and management of patients with abdominal sepsis. For patients with le-sided anastomoses, use of rectal contrast material gives valu­able additional information regarding the integrity of the anastomo­ses. Interventional radiology drains oen can be used to denitively address postoperative uid collections. 
Nonoperative Interventions
Nonoperative interventions to control the source of sepsis include percutaneous abscess drainage, as well as percutaneous and
COMPLICATIONS 447
endoscopic stent placement. ese procedures can be curative or a bridge to denitive surgery, allowing appropriate resuscitation of the patient preoperatively. 
Operation versus Observation
Surgery remains a cornerstone of treatment for intra-abdominal sepsis. It addresses the need for denitive source control and elimi­nation of bacteria and toxins from the abdominal cavity. e type and extent of surgery depends on the underlying disease process and the severity of intra-abdominal infection. e timing and adequacy of surgical source control is an important determinant of outcome. e likely presence of dense intra-abdominal adhe­sions must be considered when contemplating a repeat operation, especially more than 10 to 14 days aer a prior abdominal proce­dure. e risk of inadvertent bowel injury resulting in enterocu­taneous stulae, loss of small bowel, and potentially a worsening septic picture must be weighed against the potential benets of a repeat operation. e surgeon should attempt to diagnose the spe­cic cause of the intra-abdominal sepsis and delineate the anat­omy prior to the operation. Imaging studies, such as a CT scan and ultrasound, should be performed promptly to help dene the source and facilitate a more ecient procedure. 
Open Abdomen
Aer surgery, the abdomen may be closed or le open. e benets of maintaining an open abdomen include ease of subsequent repeat exploration, control of abdominal contents, reduced risk of intraab­dominal hypertension and abdominal compartment syndrome, and fascial preservation to ensure ultimate closure of the abdominal wall. Repeated operations or open packing of the abdomen may be required. is technique is well suited for initial damage control in patients with extensive peritonitis. Postoperatively, it is essential that all exposed bowel be continually covered by a moist surface to mini­mize the formation of stulae. 
Return to the Operating Room
In patients with intra-abdominal sepsis, certain disease processes, such as necrotizing infections and bowel ischemia, mandate a semi­elective second-look operation for proper source control. Informed
consent and discussion with the patient and family should include the potential need for repeat operations and fecal diversion.

S u g g e S t e d R e a d i n g S

Angus DC, Linde-Zwirble WT, Lidicker J, etal. Epidemiology of severe sepsis
in the United States: analysis of incidence, outcome, and associated costs of care. Crit Care Med. 2001;29:1303–1310.
Billing A, Fröhlich D, Schildberg FW. Prediction of outcome using the Man-
nheim peritonitis index in 2003 patients. Peritonitis Study Group. Br J Surg. 1994;81:209–213.
Dellinger RP, Levy MM, Rhodes A, etal. Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guide-
lines Committee including e Pediatric Subgroup 2012 Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock. Intensive Care Med. 2013;39(2):165–228.
Gaieski DF, Edwards JM, Kallan MJ, Carr BG. Benchmarking the inci-
dence and mortality of severe sepsis in the United States. Crit Care Med. 2013;41(5):1167–1174.
Jesus EC, Karliczek A, Matos D, etal. Prophylactic anastomotic drainage for
colorectal surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;4:CD002100.
Jung B, Pahlman L, Nystrom PO, etal. Mechanical bowel preparation study
group. Multicentre randomized clinical trial of mechanical bowel prepara­tion in elective colonic resection. Br J Surg. 2007;94:689.
Knaus WA, Draper EA, Wagner DP, Zimmerman JE. APACHE II: a severity
of disease classication system. Crit Care Med. 1985;13:818–829.
Martin GS, Mannino DM, Eaton S, etal. e epidemiology of sepsis in the
United States from 1979 through 2000. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:1546–1554.
Meakins JL, Solomkin JS, Allo MD, etal. A proposed classication of intra-
abdominal infections. Stratication of etiology and risk for future thera­peutic trials. Arch Surg. 1984;119:1372–1378.
Micek ST, Roubinian N, Heuring T, etal. Before-aer study of a standard-
ized hospital order set for the management of septic shock. Crit Care Med. 2006;34(11):2707–2713.
Moore LJ, Turner KL, Todd SR, et al. Computerized clinical decision sup-
port improves mortality in intraabdominal surgical sepsis. Am J Surg. 2010;200(6):839–843.
Nguyen HB, Corbett SW, Steele R, etal. Implementation of a bundle of quality
indicators for the early management of severe sepsis and septic shock is as­sociated with decreased mortality. Crit Care Med. 2007;35(4):1105–1112.
Sebat F, Johnson D, Musthafa AA, etal. A multidisciplinary community hos-
pital program for early and rapid resuscitation of shock in nontrauma pa­tients. Chest. 2005;127(5):1729–1743.
Shorr AF, Micek ST, Jackson WL, etal. Economic implications of an evidence
based sepsis protocol: can we improve outcomes and lower costs? Crit Care Med. 2007;35(5):1257–1262.
Telem DA, Chin EH, Nguyen SQ, Divino CM. Risk factors for anastomot-
ic leak following colorectal surgery: a case-control study. Arch Surg. 2010;145(4):371–376. discussion 376.
e Study of the Ecacy of Nosocomial Infection Control (SENIC).

M  A L
Nathan Smallwood and James Fleshman

INTRODUCTION

Although signicant improvements in oncologic outcomes aer sur­gery for colorectal cancer have been achieved, the issue of anastomotic leaks remains a challenge. In fact, an anastomotic leak is one of the most serious complications of any restorative colon or rectal resection. Leaks account for a quarter of all postoperative deaths aer colorectal surgery and up to one third of all deaths aer low anterior resection. In addition to mortality, anastomotic leaks are associated with increased morbidity and decreased quality of life because of the rate of permanent ostomy (up to 72%), the need for additional surgeries, and the func­tional consequences of the related sepsis. In the literature, the major focus has been on the causes of anastomotic leaks, with little attention given to their management. e mortality rate has not changed in the past three decades despite signicant improvements in critical care, and our knowledge of factors contributing to leaks unfortunately has not resulted in eective leak prevention. Anastomotic leaks traditionally have been thought to be due to problems with technique, yet the rate of leaks has remained unchanged despite the introduction of the surgical stapler. If leaks were the result of technical error, surgeons would be the best predictors of these events. However, studies have shown that a sur­geon’s own judgment in predicting the risk of a leak is very poor. Given that anastomotic leaks remain both inevitable and unpredictable, the only way that postoperative outcomes can be improved is through early detection and better management when they do occur. 

WHAT DEFINES A LEAK?

Despite the constant rate of anastomotic leaks, little consensus exists among surgeons about how to manage the problem. Much of this lack of consensus could be due to variation in how an anastomotic leak is dened. e denition of an anastomotic leak used in this chapter will be consistent with the denition put forth by the International Study Group of Rectal Cancer. An anastomotic leak is dened as a defect of the intestinal wall at the anastomotic site leading to a communication between the intra- and extraluminal compartments. is communica­tion can be conrmed radiographically, endoscopically, or intraopera­tively. Anastomotic leaks can be symptomatic (clinical) or asymptomatic (subclinical). Clinical leaks generally cause symptoms of pelvic discom­fort and signs of sepsis and can be identied endoscopically or with imaging. Subclinical leaks may only be identied at a follow-up endos­copy, prior to stoma closure, or during surveillance for cancer risk. 
early diagnosis, control of sepsis, and use of interventions that do not increase the risk of a permanent stoma. 

EARLY DIAGNOSIS

Mortality rates have been shown to increase from 0 to 18% if an anas­tomotic leak is recognized aer the h postoperative day. A delay of 2½ days in denitive intervention for a recognized leak increased the mortality by 15%. A leak that is present from the time of the operation is dicult to diagnose early in the postoperative period because signs and symptoms take time to appear, especially if a diverting ostomy is pres­ent or the patient has a prolonged ileus. Symptomatic leaks are typically diagnosed between 7 and 12 days aer surgery. Asymptomatic leaks can be diagnosed months later, especially if the leak is through a portion of the anastomosis that is not in the direct fecal stream (e.g., the blind end of a side-to-end anastomosis). Overall, up to 42% of leaks are diagnosed aer the patient is discharged. An anastomotic leak can cause a vari­ety of nonspecic cardiovascular, pulmonary, and gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms. Signs and symptoms, such as fever and leukocytosis, are usually indicative of a postoperative infectious complication and rarely reach predictive values while the patient is still in the hospital. Perito­nitis is unlikely in patients if their anastomosis is either extraperitoneal or covered by a proximal stoma. Drains placed at surgery can provide early clues to the presence of a leak but can just as easily be mislead­ing. Goligher examined data from a large series of patients, all of whom underwent a postoperative contrast enema aer undergoing colorectal anastomoses, and found a 30% leak rate. e study was performed prior to the introduction of stapling techniques but still serves to encourage a high index of suspicion for a leak aer a colorectal anastomosis. 

IMAGING

Computerized tomography (CT), CT with rectal contrast material (CT-RC), and a gentle water-soluble contrast enema (WSCE) are the preferred techniques for diagnosing a leak but can fail to diagnose it at the vital early stage. CT-RC has proved to be more sensitive in identifying anastomotic leaks than WSCE and also permits accurate identication of any abscess that may be amenable to percutaneous drainage. Contrast material can be injected down the distal limb of the ostomy to prevent further disunion of the anastomosis by injec­tion through the rectum. 

PRINCIPLES OF MANAGEMENT

e goals of any leak management strategy should be preservation of the anastomosis, minimal morbidity and mortality, and mainte­nance of quality of life. ese goals can best be achieved through
448

CRP LEVELS

C-reactive protein (CRP) appears to be a very promising marker for anastomotic leaks. CRP levels remain elevated beyond the third day postoperatively in all patients who have had leaks. We have noticed
COMPLICATIONS 449
that the absolute value is less important than the trend. Postopera­tive CRP levels increase on postoperative days 1 and 2 but begin to decrease on postoperative day 3 and onward in the vast majority of patients who do not have a leak. If CRP levels are not declining by postoperative day 4 or 5, further investigation may be warranted. However, there is no level 1 evidence to prove that postoperative serum CRP levels accurately diagnose a leak. ey are another piece of evidence that guides the clinician and adds minimal cost to the care of the patient. 

ENDOSCOPY

Endoscopy has primarily been used to assess a radiographically diagnosed colorectal anastomotic leak in the acute setting or prior to takedown of a diverting ostomy. When used in conjunction with CT-RC, endoscopy can provide additional information about the anastomosis that is important for the subsequent management of the leak. is information includes:
n e presence of ischemia or necrosis n Exudate or other debris unlikely to adequately drain using per-
cutaneous methods
n Disproving a false-positive WSCE study (a false-positive rate of
up to 6.4% occurs in the setting of a side-to-end anastomosis)
n Evaluation of a suspected leak in more proximal anastomoses,
which are known to be less adequately evaluated by contrast studies
Endoscopy has been proposed as a primary diagnostic tool to be used routinely for the evaluation of the esophagogastric anastomo­sis aer esophageal resection. Patients without signs of a leak who underwent routine endoscopy were found to have either ischemia or a leak. Routine endoscopy did not cause an anastomotic complication or further worsening of the existing dehiscence. A normal anasto­mosis on endoscopy was a reliable negative predictor for absence of a leak. No colorectal studies have evaluated the safety and ecacy of routine endoscopy in diagnosing an anastomotic leak, and thus endoscopy should only be used to conrm a questionable leak seen on imaging.
Leaks from proximal colonic anastomoses can present with more signicant symptoms than those from a colorectal or colo­anal anastomosis, including peritonitis, profound sepsis, or septic shock. In such patients, a repeat exploration is mandatory, and the leak can be conrmed by either direct examination or intraopera­tive endoscopy. A stable patient should have a CT scan with oral contrast material to decide whether the diagnosis of an anastomotic leak should be further pursued. It is possible for a proximal leak to be walled o by the omentum or loops of intestine, with the pos­sibility of an associated collection that is amenable to percutaneous drainage and bowel rest. 

VARIABLES DIRECTING MANAGEMENT

Location: Intraperitoneal versus Extraperitoneal
Patients with anastomotic leaks within the peritoneal cavity more oen present with sepsis from diuse contamination and peritonitis than do patients whose leaks are extraperitoneal, which is the likely explana­tion for higher leak-related mortality associated with right-sided colon resections. Leaking intraperitoneal anastomoses should be resected and reconstructed (if possible) with diversion if contamination is severe or the interval from identication of the leak to a repeat opera­tion is prolonged. If intestinal ischemia and an uncertain blood supply are present, a separated ostomy and mucus stula is constructed.
Patients with distal extraperitoneal leaks may already have under­gone diversion and rarely benet from a laparotomy. Fecal diversion
may be necessary if it has not already been performed. Revision of the low pelvic anastomosis should only be attempted if the defect can be seen and the risk of further disruption of the suture line is small.
Any established perianastomotic abscess (intraperitoneal or extra­peritoneal) should be evaluated to rule out an anastomotic leak by searching for a connection to the anastomosis. A contained intraperi­toneal perianastomotic abscess can undergo successful percutaneous drainage. Any resulting enterocutaneous stula can be managed con­servatively with bowel rest or diversion as needed. 
Type of Anastomosis: Ileocolic versus Colorectal/
Ileorectal
An uncontained leak from a colorectal anastomosis can be managed by abdominal washout and proximal diversion. is management has been shown to eectively control the sepsis aer a resection for diverticulitis. Resection of the failed anastomosis and creation of an end ostomy is associated with increased morbidity and a higher risk of a permanent stoma. Repair of the anastomosis should only be attempted if the suture line will not be compromised. e risk of a leak aer a colorectal anastomosis increases if the site of the anasto­mosis is lower in the rectum (10% to 17%).
Leakage aer an ileocolic or proximal colon anastomosis occurs infrequently (at a rate of 2% to 3%). Resection and reanastomosis for ileocolic, colocolic, and small bowel anastomosis are as safe as diver­sion alone in patients undergoing staged laparotomies for second­ary peritonitis. erefore, in the case of an ileocolic anastomosis, it might be best to perform a resection and reanastomosis. e decision to divert will be inuenced by the degree of contamination and the blood supply of the bowel of the anastomosis. In turn, the degree of contamination depends on the time from the leak to laparotomy. An additional factor in the decision about whether to resect and reanas­tomose with a diverting loop, or to resect and exteriorize, is that oper­ations to close an end stoma typically require a midline incision with lysis of adhesions and carry increased morbidity (leak and mortality) compared with a loop ileostomy takedown through a local incision.
A large anastomotic dehiscence or signicant necrosis at an ileo­colic anastomosis in an unstable patient with a shortened inamed mesentery (as a result of Crohn disease) and/or a large body habi­tus is an absolute indication for an end ileostomy and mucus stula. Resection, repeat anastomosis, and loop ileostomy creation puts the patient at risk for another leak, and thus resection and creation of an end ileostomy and mucus stula is a better choice. 
Symptoms: Sepsis versus Symptomatic versus Asymptomatic
Signs of sepsis and septic shock mandate an immediate operation to control the infectious source because as time passes, mortality increases. Secondary peritonitis is associated with high mortality (20% to 60%).
e three key components to controlling the source of infection include (1) eradicating the source, (2) thorough drainage, and (3) preventing recurrent sepsis.
Early control of sepsis prevents multiorgan failure, and a quick but denitive operation is the goal. Laparotomy and washout should be the standard. Laparoscopic washout, especially if the previous opera­tion was performed laparoscopically, can be considered, and diver­sion alone can eectively control the source of infection in a proximal anastomosis. Septic shock is an indication for anastomotic resection with creation of an end ileostomy and mucus stula. In addition, if a column of stool is present above the leaking anastomosis, the anasto­mosis should be taken down and an end colostomy made to resolve the septic shock.
Abbreviated laparotomies with either a staged damage-control repeat laparotomy or maintenance of an open abdomen should only
ManageMent of anastoMotic Leak450
be considered if the source of sepsis cannot be controlled at the index operation. Patients eectively treated with closed abdomens at the rst operation do far better than when either a repeat laparotomy is planned or the abdomen is le open. On-demand laparotomy is the preferred approach. If a signicant improvement in overall status has not occurred within 48 hours, a repeat laparotomy is indicated. Mor­tality has been shown to increase by 50% if a repeat laparotomy is undertaken more than 48 hours aer the initial laparotomy.
Asymptomatic leaks found on imaging have been considered benign, and treatment is not needed. Unfortunately, all leaks, with or without symptoms, are associated with perianastomotic inamma­tion and brosis. Despite this traditional view of asymptomatic leaks, recent research has shown that patients with subclinical leaks from a colorectal or coloanal anastomosis have higher incontinence scores, poorer bowel function, and an increased number of surgical or endo­scopic procedures, costing up to $3080 per patient. Early diagnosis allows local drainage of extrarectal collection or placement of an Endo-SPONGE (B Braun Melsungen AG, Melsungen, Germany) to prevent the onset of brosis. Defects become less amenable to closure and rectal dysfunction becomes permanent as time progresses. 
Previously Diverted: Proximal Diverting Ostomy versus Nondiverted
Diverted leaks at extraperitoneal anastomoses are less likely to be associated with poor function than are nondiverted anastomo­ses. Proximal diversion (either at the initial surgery or aer a leak) improves healing and future function by allowing for easier and more eective use of endoscopic treatments of the leak. Continued passage of stool through the leaked anastomosis results in chronic inam­mation, with severe pelvic brosis, decreased rectal compliance, and poor anal function. Although proximal diversion at the time of colorectal anastomosis may not prevent leakage, it certainly changes the impact of an anastomotic leak. 

LEAK MANAGEMENT TOOLS

Anastomotic defects sometimes spontaneously heal on their own aer a patient undergoes diversion. It is important to be sure that any defect or cavity around a leak is completely healed before ostomy closure to prevent recurrent pelvic sepsis. Unfortunately, not all defects heal completely, and some require an increased amount of time before they completely heal. Endoscopic and transanal repair techniques can be used to expedite leak closure. Surgeries such as the Turnbull-Cutait pull through can be used to eectively restore bowel continuity when a low rectal anastomosis cannot be salvaged. e fol­lowing discussion provides insights into the use of these techniques to salvage the highest risk, le-sided, and low colorectal anastomosis. 

ENDO-VACUUM ASSISTED CLOSURE

Endo-vacuum assisted closure (E-VAC) and endoluminal vacuum therapy are names used to describe the use of negative pressure wound therapy to treat anastomotic leakage from a colorectal or coloanal anastomosis. e Endo-SPONGE, which has been available in Europe for more than a decade, was not approved by the Food and Drug Administration until 2012. Surgeons have also adapted the current Wound V.A.C. (LifeCell Corp., Bridgewater, N.J.) for use as an internal Wound V.A.C. With either product, no dressing is needed to provide a seal because the intraluminal or intracavitary location itself creates the needed seal. e modied Wound V.A.C. (which henceforth will be referred to as E-VAC) is deployed both within the wound cavity and within the lumen, with increased negative pressure (175 mm Hg). In fact, higher pressures may be needed than those used for external wounds because of the increased uid volume and
to prevent device migration. e black V.A.C. sponge is mounted and secured on the trimmed nasogastric tube with nylon suture, through both sponge and tube, and inserted into the rectum through the anus and into the cavity of the abscess. e tube is connected to V.A.C. suction. e anus and rectum collapse to seal the area. e sponge is changed every 3 to 5 days.
E-VAC therapy is eective in resolving pelvic sepsis, closing anastomotic defects and adjacent abscess cavities, and improving outcomes compared with those achieved by other methods. Cavity closure rates range from 56% to 100%, and restoration of intestinal continuity is reported in 20% to 90% of patients. Removal of infected secretions, reduction of edema, increased perfusion, and formation of granulation tissue are accomplished. e major mechanism of defect closure occurs through wound contraction. However, chronic infection and inammation lead to brosis, and when present, bro­sis greatly decreases the amount of wound contraction and the ability to completely close abscess cavities or anastomotic defects. is out­come was shown by Von Koperen, who was the rst to report lower healing rates (38%) when E-VAC therapy was begun 6 weeks or more aer the initial operation compared with higher healing rates (75%) when it was begun prior to the 6-week period. e increased surface area of the sponge provides more eective drainage than other types of drains, and unlike operatively or percutaneously placed drains, it prevents further leakage through the defect.
In proximal anastomoses, sponge placement and migration are more of an issue. However, E-VAC therapy is also much more eec­tive in patients with a proximal diverting ostomy, and although the lack of diversion is not a total contraindication, patients who have not undergone a diversion procedure can be dicult to treat. Lastly, the decreased closure rates seen when the initiation of therapy is delayed possibly can be rectied if E-VAC therapy is combined with other endoscopic methods of closure such as clipping or transanal techniques. 

ENDOSCOPIC STENTS, CLIPS, AND GLUE

Covered stents facilitate complete resolution of esophageal anasto­motic leaks within days to weeks. Studies show that esophageal stents allow much earlier resumption of oral intake and signicantly shorter hospital stays and have an 87% to 94% success rate. e principle behind the use of stents is that they are able to eectively “bridge the breach” and in doing so provide a scaold that allows for reap­proximation of the two ends, mucosal regeneration, and prevention of further drainage through the anastomotic defect. Only a small number of studies, mainly composed of case series, include colorec­tal anastomotic leaks. Reports show varying degrees of success in treating acute leaks, complete anastomotic disunion, and chronic stulas. Very limited controlled evidence is available at this time. Covered stents placed across the leaked anastomosis close the defect and can create an undrained abscess, and thus it is necessary to place a counter drain into the cavity of the abscess. Proximal diversion is sometimes needed with covered stents, because stent migration remains a signicant problem and recurrent sepsis can result from stent migration in a patient without proximal diversion. Partially covered stents with uncovered anges are less prone to migrate, but tissue in-growth can make removal very dicult. A fully covered stent can be deployed within the partially covered stent a few days prior to removal, which allows for pressure-induced necrosis of the mucosal ingrowth, thereby facilitating stent removal. Migration can be prevented through the use of full-thickness sutures or endoscopic clips placed at the ends of the stent, and larger diameter and longer stents migrate less frequently. Stents migrate far less when traversing a stricture, and thus a certain degree of stenosis can be helpful when placing a stent for leaks.
More proximal anastomoses are less amenable to stenting because of problems with device deployment and the overall larger diameter