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_1100_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
02.09.2026
Размер:
21 Мб
Скачать
348 S. B. Lim and J. G. Guillem
cancer, alone), and variability in the management of the anastomotic leak.
Key Points on How to Avoid theComplication
1. Following basic principles of good anastomo­sis is the most important to reduce leakage.
2. Bowel preparation prior to surgery and pelvic drainage are advisable to reduce symptomatic leakage.
The height
3.
of anastomosis from anal verge is significantly associated with the anastomotic leakage.
Selective use of diverting
4.
stoma in patients with high risk is highly advisable to reduce symptomatic leakage.
Surgeon should consider the possibility of
5. permanent
stoma while doing sphincter-pre-
serving surgery.
Key Points on Diagnosing andManaging
1. Prompt diagnosis and appropriate manage­ment could lower mortality following leakage.
2. CT scanning for diagnosis is highly accurate, and CT-guided drainage of abscess has high treatment success rates.
3. The patients with anastomotic leakage could be categorized according to their presentation and severity of leakage.
4. Anastomotic leakage is the most common cause for anorectal dysfunction and anasto­motic stricture.
5. Anastomotic leakage leads to anorectal dys­function and might be associated with increas­ing local recurrence.
References
1. Milgrom SA, Goodman KA, Nash GM, Paty PB, Guillem JG, Temple LK, Weiser MR, Garcia- Aguilar J. Neoadjuvant radiation therapy prior to total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer is not associated with postoperative complications using current tech­niques. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21(7):2295–302.
2. Bakker IS, Snijders HS, W Tollenaar RA, Wiggers T, Dekker JW. High compli­cation rate after low anterior resection for mid and high rectal cancer; results of a population-based study. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2014;40(6):692–8.
3. Rahbari NN, Moran B, Ulrich A, Holm T, Wong WD, Tiret E, Moriya Y, Laurberg S, den Dulk M, van de Velde C, Büchler MW. Definition and grading of anastomotic leakage following anterior resection of the rectum: a proposal by the International Study Group of Rectal Cancer. Surgery. 2010;147(3):339–51.
4. Vermeer GA, Rutten HJ. Anastomotic leakage and presacral abscess formation after locally advanced rectal can­cer surgery: incidence, risk factors and treatment. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2014;pii:S0748–7983(14)00381–3.
5. Snijders HS, W schoten NE, Henneman D, de Vries AC, Tollenaar RA, Bonsing BA. Meta-analysis of the risk for anas­tomotic leakage, the postoperative mortality caused by leakage in relation to the overall postoperative mortality. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2012;38(11):1013–9.
6. Nesbakken A, Nygaard K, Lunde OC. Outcome and late
functional results after anastomotic leakage fol­lowing mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2001;88(3):400–4.
7. Mirnezami A, Mirnezami R, Chandrakumaran K, Sasapu K, Sagar P, Finan P. Increased local recur­rence and reduced survival from colorectal cancer following anastomotic leak: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 2011;253(5):890–9.
8. Hallböök O, Påhlman dahl R. Randomized comparison of straight and colonic J pouch anastomosis after low anterior resec­tion. Ann Surg. 1996;224(1):58–65.
9. Peeters KC, Tollenaar RA, Marijnen CA, Klein Kranenbarg E, Steup WH, Wiggers T, Rutten HJ, van de Velde CJ, Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group. Risk factors for anastomotic failure after total mesorectal excision of rectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2005;92(2):211–6.
10.
Hüser N, Michalski CW, Erkan M, Schuster
T, Rosenberg R, Kleeff J, Friess H. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the role of defunction­ing stoma in low rectal cancer surgery. Ann Surg. 2008;248(1):52–60.
11. Iancu C, Mocan LC, Todea-Iancu D, Mocan T, Acalovschi I, Ionescu D, Zaharie FV, Osian G, Puia CI, Muntean V. Host-related predictive factors for anastomotic leakage following large bowel resec­tions for colorectal cancer. J Gastrointest Liver Dis. 2008;17(3):299–303.
12. Jestin P, Påhlman L, Gunnarsson U. Risk fac­tors for anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer surgery: a case-control study. Colorectal Dis. 2008;10(7):715–21.
13. Mäkelä JT, Kiviniemi H, Laitinen S. Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after left sided colorectal resec­tion with rectal anastomosis. Dis Colon Rectum. 2003;46(5):653–60.
Weitz J, Hohenberger W, Heald RJ,
TA, Orsini RG, Daams F, Nieuwenhuijzen
outers MW, van Leersum NJ, Kolf-
outers MW, Havenga K,
L, Krog M, Wexner SD, Sjö-
14. Rullier E, Laurent C, Garrelon JL, Michel P, Saric J, Parneix M. Risk factors for anastomotic leak­age after resection of rectal cancer. Br J Surg. 1998;85(3):355–8.
15.
Kim MJ, Shin R, Oh HK, Park JW
Park JG. The impact of heavy smoking on anas­tomotic leakage and stricture after low anterior resection in rectal cancer patients. World J Surg. 2011;35(12):2806–10.
Eriksen MT, Wibe A, Norstein J, Haffner J, Wiig JN,
16. Norwegian Rectal Cancer Group. Anastomotic leak­age following routine mesorectal excision for rectal cancer in a national cohort of patients. Colorectal Dis. 2005;7(1):51–7.
17. Kapiteijn E, Kranenbarg EK, Steup WH, Taat CW, Rutten HJ, Wiggers T, van Krieken JH, Hermans J, Leer JW, van de Velde CJ. Total mesorectal excision (TME) with or without preoperative radiotherapy in the treatment of primary rectal cancer. Prospective randomised trial with standard operative and histo­pathological techniques. Dutch ColoRectal Cancer Group. Eur J Surg. 1999;165(5):410–20.
Marijnen CA, Kapiteijn E, van de
18. H, Steup WH, Wiggers T, Kranenbarg EK, Leer JW, Cooperative Investigators of the Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group. Acute side effects and complications after short-term preoperative radiotherapy combined with total mesorectal excision in primary rectal can­cer: report of a multicenter randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20(3):817–25.
19. Guillou PJ, Quirke P, Thorpe H, Smith AM, Heath RM, Brown JM, MRC CLASICC trial group. Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2005;365(9472):1718–26.
20. Güenaga KF, Matos D, W cal bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;9:CD001544. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001544.pub4.
Van’t Sant HP, Weidema WF, Hop WC, Oostvogel
21. HJ, Contant CM. The influence of mechanical bowel preparation in elective lower colorectal surgery. Ann Surg. 2010;251(1):59–63.
22.
Bretagnol F, Panis
Dousset B, Portier G, Benoist S, Chipponi J, Vicaut E, French Research Group of Rectal Cancer Surgery (GRECCAR). Rectal cancer surgery with or without bowel preparation: The French GRECCAR III mul­ticenter single-blinded randomized trial. Ann Surg. 2010;252(5):863–8.
23.
Hyman N, Manchester TL, Osler T, Burns B,
Cataldo PA. Anastomotic leaks after intestinal anastomosis: it’s later than you think. Ann Surg. 2007;245(2):254–8.
24. Morks AN, Ploeg RJ, Sijbrand Hofker H, T, Havenga K. Late anastomotic leakage in colorec­tal surgery: a significant problem. Colorectal Dis. 2013;15(5):e271–5. doi:10.1111/codi.12167.
ille-Jørgensen P. Mechani-
Y, Rullier E, Rouanet P, Berdah S,
, Jeong SY,
Velde CJ, Martijn
Walker J, Jayne DG,
Wiggers
34932 Anastomotic Leak/Pelvic Abscess
25.
Schechter S, Eisenstat TE, Oliver GC, Rubin RJ,
26. Dehni N, Schlegel RD, Cunningham C, Guiguet M,
Gooszen AW
27.
28. den Dulk M, Smit M, Peeters KC, Kranenbarg EM,
29.
Dinnewitzer A, Jäger T
30. Luchtefeld MA, Milsom JW, Senagore
31. Schlegel RD, Dehni N, Parc R, Caplin S, Tiret E.
32. Vironen JH, Kairaluoma M, Aalto AM, Kellokumpu
33. Hallböök O, Sjödahl R.
34.
Ashburn JH, Stocchi L, Kiran
35. Merkel S, Wang WY, Schmidt O, Dworak O, Witte-
36. Bell SW,
Ptok H, Marusch F, Meyer F, Schubert D, Gastinger
37.
EP. Computerized tomographic scan-guided
Salvati drainage of intra-abdominal abscesses. Preoperative and postoperative modalities in colon and rectal sur­gery. Dis Colon Rectum. 1994;37(10):984–8.
Tiret E, Parc R. Influence of a defunctioning stoma on leakage rates after low colorectal anastomosis and colonic J pouch-anal anastomosis. Br J Surg. 1998;85(8):1114–7.
MB, Gooszen HG. Temporary decompression after colorectal surgery: randomized comparison of loop ileostomy and loop colostomy. Br J Surg. 1998;85(1):76–9.
Rutten HJ, Wiggers T, Putter H, van de Velde CJ, Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group. A multivariate anal­ysis of limiting factors for stoma reversal in patients with rectal cancer entered into the total mesorectal excision (TME) trial: a retrospective study. Lancet Oncol. 2007;8(4):297–303.
gang H, Öfner D. Cumulative incidence of perma­nent stoma after sphincter preserving low anterior resection of mid and low rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2013;56(10):1134–42.
JA, Mazier WP. Colorectal anastomotic stenosis. Results of a survey of the ASCRS membership. Dis Colon Rectum. 1989;32(9):733–6.
Results of reoperations in colorectal anastomotic strictures. Dis Colon Rectum. 2001;44(10):1464–8.
IH. Impact of functional results on quality of life after rectal cancer surgery. Dis Colon Rectum. 2006;49(5):568–78.
functional outcome after anterior resection of the rectum. Br J Surg. 1996;83(1):60–2.
FH. Consequences of anastomotic leak after restor­ative proctectomy for cancer: effect on long-term function and quality of life. Dis Colon Rectum. 2013;56(3):275–80.
kind C, Hohenberger W, Hermanek P. Locoregional recurrence in patients with anastomotic leakage after anterior resection for rectal carcinoma. Colorectal Dis. 2001;3(3):154–60.
OF, Chapuis PH, Bokey EL. Anastomotic leak­age after curative anterior resection results in a higher prevalence of local recurrence. Br J Surg. 2003;90(10):1261–6.
I, Lippert H, Study Group Colon/Rectu (Primary Tumour). Impact of anastomotic leakage on oncological outcome after rectal cancer resection. Br J Surg. 2007;94(12):1548–54.
, Geelkerken RH, Hermans J, Lagaay
, Nawara C, Buchner S, Wolf-
A, Surrell
Anastomotic leakage and
RP, Dietz DW, Remzi
Walker KG, Rickard MJ, Sinclair G, Dent
m Carcinoma
350 S. B. Lim and J. G. Guillem
38. Jung SH, Yu CS, Choi PW, Kim DD, Park IJ, Kim HC, Kim JC. Risk factors and oncologic impact of anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer surgery. Dis Colon Rectum. 2008;51(6):902–8.
39.
den Dulk M, Marijnen CA, Collette L, Putter H,
Påhlman L, Folkesson J, Bosset JF, Rödel C, Bujko K, van de Velde CJ. Multicentre analysis of onco­logical and survival outcomes following anasto­motic leakage after rectal cancer surgery. Br J Surg. 2009;96(9):1066–75.
40.
Bertelsen CA, Andreasen AH,
ling H, Danish Colorectal Cancer Group. Anas­tomotic leakage after curative anterior resection
Jørgensen T, Har-
for rectal cancer: short and long-term outcome. Colorectal Dis. 2010;12(7 Online):e76–81. doi:10.1111/j.1463-1318.2009.01935.x.
41.
Jörgren F
Anastomotic leakage after surgery for rectal cancer: a risk factor for local recurrence, distant metastasis and reduced cancer-specific survival? Colorectal Dis. 2011;13(3):272–83.
42.
Smith JD, Paty PB, Guillem JG, T
MR, Nash GM. Anastomotic leak is not associated with oncologic outcome in patients undergoing low anterior resection for rectal cancer. Ann Surg. 2012;256(6):1034–8.
, Johansson R, Damber L, Lindmark G.
emple LK, Weiser
Management of Anastomotic Stricture
Lindsey E. Richards, Sarah Y. Boostrom
and James W. Fleshman
33
Introduction
While the incidence of colon cancer is declining in the USA, approximately 40 % of colon cancers identified are discovered at the regional stage, when colonic resection is the first-line therapy [1]. This, coupled with the increase of inflamma­tory bowel disease (IBD) globally [2], gives rise to a large number of colon and rectal operations in the USA each year. However, despite improve­ment in operative techniques, the achievement of event-free healing following intestinal anas­tomoses remains a challenge. Anastomotic stric­ture complications compromise approximately 3–30 % of all colocolonic, colorectal, and colo­anal anastomoses, with the wide range dependent on the definition of anastomotic stricture utilized. An anastomotic stricture may be defined as any chronic narrowing or obstruction to the flow of intestinal contents, resulting in clinical signs or symptoms of either complete or partial obstruc­tion, following surgical resection. Given the sub­jective definition, in an attempt to objectively define a stricture, Fasth et al. defined a colorec­tal anastomotic (CRA) stricture as the inability
S. Y. Boostrom () · L. E. Richards Baylor University Medical Center, 3500 Gaston Avenue 1st Floor Roberts, Dallas, TX 75246, USA e-mail: Sarah.Boostrom@baylorhealth.edu
L. E. Richards e-mail: lrichards@medicine.tamhsc.edu
J. W. Fleshman Department of Surgery, Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA e-mail: james.fleshman@baylorhealth.edu
to pass a 12-mm sigmoidoscope through a rec­tal anastomosis [3]. If not treated appropriately, these strictures may lead to poor function with urgency, frequent bowel movements, inconti­nence, and ultimately a permanent stoma [3]. We review the risk factors, prevention, and diagno­sis of CRA strictures, as well as discuss the in­dividual treatments for colocolonic anastomotic (CCA), colorectal anastomotic (CRA), and colo­anal anastomotic (CAA) strictures.
Etiology of Anastomotic Stricture
Many causal agents have been linked to the de­velopment of anastomotic strictures; however, three frequent causes of CRA strictures include anastomotic leaks/inflammation, ischemia, and anastomoses created under tension (Table 33.1) [4].
Anastomotic leaks instigate inflammation and pelvic sepsis, which leads to fibrosis, with a stric­ture being the end result [5]. An increased risk for stricture formation exists for anastomoses created after resection for an inflammatory process, such as diverticulitis and IBD, because inflammation itself is a risk factor for stenosis [6]. Other inde­pendent risk factors associated with anastomotic leaks include anastomoses <10 cm from the anal verge, ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery distal to the left colic artery (“low” ligation), male sex, intraoperative complications, and gen­eral patient comorbidities. In fact, both diabetes and atherosclerosis have been identified in small studies as significant risk factors for impaired local blood flow and thus anastomotic leaks [7].
T. M. Pawlik et al. (eds.), Gastrointestinal Surgery, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4939-2223-9_33, © Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015
351
352 L. E. Richards et al.
Table 33.1  Factors influencing anastomotic integrity
Surgeon factors Patient factors Disease factors Intestinal blood supply Body mass index (BMI) Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) Tension at anastomotic site Anesthesia severity assessment (ASA) Metastatic carcinoma Perioperative hypoxia Age Radiation therapy Perioperative resuscitation Smoking status Damage control surgery Intraoperative blood loss Nutritional status Emergent surgery/peritonitis Operative times Alcohol use Steroids
Fig. 33.1 In order to provide complete splenic flex- ure mobilization to allow maximum reach for CRA and CAAs, and a tension-free anastomosis, the inferior mes­enteric vein should be ligated proximally at the inferior border of the pancreas
A correlation has been found between CRA strictures and failure to mobilize the splenic flex­ure and “low” ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery and vein [8]. In order to provide complete splenic flexure mobilization to allow maximum reach for CRA and CAAs, and a tension-free anastomosis, the inferior mesenteric vein should be ligated proximally at the inferior border of the pancreas (Fig. 33.1) [9]. Hiranyakas et al. found that 90 % of patients with CRA strictures had a nonmobilized splenic flexure and intact inferior mesenteric vessels; these data support the neces­sity to fully mobilize the left colon and splenic flexure [8].
Adequate blood flow at the anastomotic site is also imperative to prevent anastomotic strictures [5]. If the terminal end of the bowel has ques­tionable blood flow, it should be resected until acceptable flow is present. Clinical indicators im­plying adequate blood flow may be assessed with evaluation of the color of the mucosa, bleeding at cut bowel edges, and palpable pulses within the vasculature. Doppler and fluorescence imag­ing are other modalities that can aid in the assess­ment of blood flow at the anastomosis. It has been demonstrated that the transverse and descending colon have increased measured oxygen tension, whereas oxygen tension is diminished in the cir­cumstances when the sigmoid is utilized for the anastomosis. Thus, the sigmoid is a suboptimal choice for routine anastomosis [10].
The best method of creating the anastomosis (stapled versus hand-sewn) continues to be a de­bated topic. While stapling allows for a reduc­tion in operative time, ease of use, and decreased blood loss, some small studies illustrate higher rates of complications with stapled anastomoses [6]. Higher levels of collagen deposition and in­flammation in the stapled anastomosis correlate with a higher stricture rate [6]. Reports of in­creased stricture rates in low stapled anastomo­ses with fecal diversion suggest that stapled anas­tomoses may “require” the dilation effect from the passage of stool [4]. Some clinicians also believe that they have more control of the shape and caliber of the anastomosis when the anasto­mosis is performed hand-sewn, thereby decreas­ing the risk of anastomotic stricture. Of note, a 2012 Cochrane meta-analysis review noted that stapled and hand-sewn anastomosis were equiva­lent in all categories except stricture formation [11]. The frequency of stricture was significantly
Table 33.2   Cochrane review: stapled versus hand-sewn methods for colorectal anastomosis surgery
Stapler Hand-sewn
Study/year Strictured Total Strictured Total
Infraperitoneal anastomosis
Fingergut [26] 8 50 2 52
Subtotal 8 50 2 52 0.04 Supraperitoneal anastomosis
Fingergut [26] 4 82 2 72 Sarker [27] 0 30 0 30
Subtotal 4 112 2 102 0.5 Colorectal anastomosis
Elhadad [28] 10 122 1 133 Gonzalez 1987 8 55 3 55 Kracht [29] 10 137 1 131 Thiede [30] 0 24 1 23
Subtotal 28 338 6 342 0.000089 Total 40 500 10 496 0.000012
p value
35333 Management of Anastomotic Stricture
higher with stapling than hand-sewn technique ( p < 0.05) (Table 33.2).
Factors predictive of anastomotic stricture include patient age, obesity, smoking status, and relevant comorbidities including diabetes [12]. Obese patients undergoing ileo-anal pouch anas­tomosis were found to have an increased rate of overall complications (80 versus 64 %) com­pared to nonobese patients, with stricture being a specific increased complication (27 versus 6 %) [13].
Presentation and Diagnosis
Anastomotic strictures typically present 2–12 months after surgery [4] with symptoms such as constipation or watery diarrhea, pain, cramps, fractionated evacuation, abdominal distention, leakage, or feelings of incomplete evacuation [6]. In cases where the indication for the initial resec­tion was malignancy, it is essential that local re­currence of the cancer be ruled out. Initial studies performed should include carcinoembryonic an­tigen (CEA level), hypaque enema, contrast CT for colon primary or MRI for rectal primary, and a positron emission tomography (PET) scan in the setting of patient with an elevated CEA. Ul­timately, a colonoscopy with biopsy is mandated [4]. A stricture that is not responsive to repeated
dilation requires repeat biopsy and a high level of clinical suspicion [14].
Strictures are more common when the anas­tomosis is distal, with rectal strictures being the most frequent [3, 8]. It is crucial to eliminate technical risk factors (rotation, ischemia) as well as tension (especially operations that require an anastomosis within 15 cm of the anal verge). Patients with a diverting stoma created at the initial resection may develop a soft stricture or even heal the lumen closed. A digital exam 4–6 weeks postoperatively or prior to closure of the diverting stoma relieve those strictures, which are often much softer and easier to dilate early in the postoperative course [4]. Similarly, patients with a low rectal anastomosis require a digi­tal examination in addition to a hypaque enema prior to diverting ileostomy closure (Fig. 33.2). If a tight, firm stricture is present, intraoperative dilation with Hegar dilators may be performed in conjunction with loop ileostomy closure. It is occasionally necessary to place a flexible scope through the distal limb of the loop stoma to guide placement of a guide wire, using Seldinger tech­nique, through the center of the strictured anasto­mosis. This guide wire can then be used to guide a dilator through the stricture. The light of the scope from proximal to the anastomosis targets the center of the anastomosis when viewed from the distal aspect of the anastomosis.
354 L. E. Richards et al.
Fig. 33.2 Patients with a low rectal anastomosis require a digital examination in addition to a hypaque enema prior to diverting ileostomy closure
Nonoperative Treatment
Balloon Dilation and Endoscopic Options
It is often possible to treat the early stricture in the office with a long cotton-tipped sigmoidos­copy swab passed through the rigid proctoscope. Up to three swabs can be passed through the cen­tral gap in the stricture. The swabs are then pulled through the stricture as a group, with gentle trac­tion, while the ends are held to the same level at the outer end of the proctoscope. This stretch effect then allows the 23-mm diameter scope to be passed through the stricture to fully fracture the scar.
In most circumstances, endoscopic balloon dilation remains the first-line therapeutic modal­ity for the treatment of benign colorectal stric­tures. The success of endoscopic dilation lies in its simplicity and immediate efficacy in up to 80 % of cases [15]. However, patients often re­quire sequential dilations with larger balloons over two to three endoscopic sessions to achieve long-term success [15]. Recurrence after bal­loon dilatation can range from 30 to 88 % [16]. Recurrence of the stricture is often the result of
tighter strictures being inadequately or inappro­priately dilated [17]. Of note, most data on the efficacy of balloon dilation report only on subjec­tive symptom relief [16]. While symptom relief is important, quantifiable data such as stricture size can provide more objective data as to the success of balloon dilation. Kim et al. reported a defined protocol for balloon dilation consisting of single and double balloon dilation, with im­provement in 74 % of patients after 1 month and complete improvement in 86 % of patients after 5 years. Only 5 % required repeat dilation with an average increase in the stricture diameter of 50 % [16]. With this technique, fluoroscopic guidance is used and the patient is awake and not anesthe­tized. A 20-mm balloon catheter is passed over a guide wire and filled by hand pressure until the waist on the balloon disappears. The pressure is maintained for 1 min. If no blood or pain is present, a second 10-mm balloon catheter is in­serted adjacent to the existing balloon and both are inflated simultaneously. This protocol report­edly reduced recurrence rates to 7 % at 1 year, and 10 % at 5, 7, and 10 years. As mentioned prior, dilation can also be performed digitally, with flexible bougies or metal dilators (Hegar, Eder-Peustow); however, it is important to keep in mind that balloon dilation has the advan­tage of producing controlled incremental radial pressure.
Indications for endoscopic balloon dilation include a narrow lumen (<10 mm) and a short segment stricture (<4 cm) [18]. Balloon dila­tion is not appropriate when numerous strictures or complete obstruction exist, when there is an associated fistula within the stricture, inflamma­tion around the stricture, recent surgery, or a tight angulation [18]. Stenoses that are long or appear late and are caused by ischemia will develop sur­rounding nonexpandable fibrotic tissue and a rigid colon and are unlikely to respond to balloon dilation [19].
When dilation fails or is contraindicated, other treatments should be considered. With CRA and CAA strictures, alternative treatment options include laser strictureplasty, urethroscope re­section, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopan­creatography (ERCP) papillotomy knife, and
35533 Management of Anastomotic Stricture
resection and re-stapling with a circular stapling instrument.
Stents
Self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) have also been used to treat strictures that are more proxi­mal, such as CCA and CRAs. In small studies, SEMS have proven to have a 70–90 % success rate [12, 20]. However, migration after place­ment remains a concerning complication with SEMS. A possible solution to migration could be the use of biodegradable stents, similar to those utilized for esophageal strictures. However, with only a few published case reports on biodegrad­able stent placements, more research is needed in this area [21]. The idea of radial strictureplasty with any of the above modalities, followed by placement of an expanding fully covered stent, has merit. The stent returns the luminal diameter to an acceptable size and the covered internal conduit prevents leak.
Operative Treatment
Reoperative Surgery
In those patients in whom endoscopic treatment of the anastomotic stricture has failed, reopera­tive surgery should be considered. Approximate­ly 30 % of symptomatic anastomotic strictures are severe enough to require surgical correction [5].
Anastomotic strictures have been reported to be the most frequent indication for reoperative colorectal surgery and represent 40–50 % of re­operations. This exceeds the rate of reoperation for anastomotic leak, fistula, chronic pelvic sep­sis, and cancer recurrence [3, 19].
Anastomotic revision is a surgical challenge with long operative times, intraoperative techni­cal difficulties, and increased morbidity. Anasto­motic revision remains, however, the most valu­able option to provide a symptom-free quality of life and avoidance of a permanent stoma for some patients. Indications for surgical interven-
tion include strictures that meet contraindications for dilation (long, fresh, ischemic), strictures re­fractory to multiple dilation or endoscopic tech­niques, and patients who continue to require a stoma for other reasons [3]. Strict adherence to selection criteria should be practiced with prefer­ence to patients having acceptable comorbidities, given the increased morbidity associated with this reoperative surgery if the anastomosis is within the pelvis [3, 5]. The Association Française de Chirurgie (AFC) score identifies four factors to predict accurately postoperative mortality and morbidity for patients treated for cancer or diver­ticulitis: age > 70, poor nutrition, neurologic co­morbidities, and emergency surgery [22]. In two of the three landmark papers reviewing reopera­tive surgery success, only patients with 0–1 risk factors (mortality risk <1 %) were considered, with a resulting 70–88 % of patients possessing a functional anastomosis after 28–37 months follow-up period [19]. For reoperations, specifi­cally for anastomotic strictures, the success rate was even higher at 100 % [5]. Successful results within these three studies were measured as less than four bowel movements a day, normal conti­nence, and reduction in urgency, fragmentation, and constipation. Lefevre et al. identified three risk factors for increased likelihood of compli­cations postoperatively: male gender, first pro­cedure consisting of coloanal anastomosis, and reoperation requiring a coloanal anastomosis [3].
The time necessary for a trial of first-line treatments such as endoscopic techniques and balloon dilation is often quite long [2]. In fact, most series report an average time between the initial surgery and reoperation of 14–41 months [3, 5, 19]. Once surgery is undertaken, long in­traoperative times can be expected due to the usual history of previous laparotomies coupled with hostile pelvic conditions (chronic inflamma­tion and fibrosis) [3, 19]. Adhesiolysis and small bowel resection are usually required and add to the intraoperative time. In addition, other organs are at risk and bladder injury is one of the more common complications reported, with an overall operative morbidity ranging from 26 to 55 % [3,
19]. Postoperatively, wound infection and hernia-
tion are common causes of morbidity.
356 L. E. Richards et al.
Anastomotic Revision and Diverting Stomas
Colorectal and coloanal anastomoses are consid­ered “high risk” when compared to higher intraper­itoneal anastomoses [5]. These low anastomoses have a significant risk in the early postoperative period for both leak and pelvic abscess [3]. Many patients with rectal cancer may have received pre­operative chemotherapy and radiation prior to the initial operation. In the majority of patients who receive a low pelvic anastomoses, a temporary diverting stoma is constructed at the initial proce­dure [23]. An anastomosis free of tension remains crucial to minimize leakage complications and is accomplished by adhering to standard procedure: splenic flexure mobilization, high ligation of the IMA, and sigmoid resection. Reconstruction after revising a strictured colorectal or coloanal anasto­mosis is technically difficult [5]. Although some favor a colonic pouch for function, Genser et al. and Schlegel et al. both favored straight anasto­moses in hostile pelvic conditions. The shortened length of the remaining colon, the narrowing of the pelvis secondary to sepsis and fibrosis, and the fear of leakage from the extra staple line of the pouch all support the straight anastomosis [19]. A well-vascularized anastomosis is also impera­tive to the success of the procedure, and when in doubt, additional colonic resection should be per­formed to provide a healthy colon with adequate blood supply [19].
New Technology
Reaction against the presence of a foreign body, such as metal staples or sutures, will instigate an inflammatory response, resulting in fibrosis and stenosis. A nickel–titanium alloy compression ring has been recently described for the use of constructing an anastomosis without the use of staples or sutures. The memory shaped alloy is a reversible, temperature-dependent device that transitions from rigid to malleable when cooled to 0 °C and back to rigid when it is applied to the bowel. When warmed, it slowly returns to its hard closed shape compressing the intestinal edges and applying uniform pressure to cause
controlled ischemia and necrosis. At approxi­mately 1–2 weeks, the device is expelled from the body. In a small preliminary study of 20 patients, 90 % were found to be stricture-free at 3- and 6-month follow-up [24]. In addition, the 2-week postoperative histopathology revealed minimal inflammation with uniform healing process [24]. While promising, the data are only from a very small study with very short follow-up time and has not been reproduced; thus further studies are warranted. Animal studies using a porcine model showed a more organized, near-normal intesti­nal wall structure with less inflammation at the anastomosis after a compression ring anastomo­sis. The compression may provide a more physi­ologic result with fewer strictures [25].
Conclusion
Anastomotic strictures continue to be a complica­tion in colorectal surgery. There are many known perioperative risk factors that can be optimized, as well as operative techniques that can be uti­lized for the prevention of anastomotic stricture formation. Understanding patient comorbidities and risk factors prior to surgery may allow for the correction of some parameters including smok­ing cessation and improving nutritional status. The resulting minimization of risk factors yields improved healing rates. Recognizing the risk of low anastomoses and practicing excellent tech­nique, to construct a well-vascularized, tension­free anastomosis, will minimize the risk of stric­ture formation.
Preoperative anastomotic dilation at the time of closure of the diverting loop ileostomy is valu­able for treating a soft stricture associated with a non-used primary anastomosis. Treatment of an established anastomotic stricture includes bal­loon dilation, self-expanding metal stents, radial strictureplasty by laser, electrocautery, urethro­scope, and combination techniques (Fig. 33.3). Finally, reoperative surgery may be required, in which a tension-free and well-vascularized anas­tomosis is constructed with adherence to “best” practice to reduce strictures. Future technology and innovations including the memory shaped alloy ring may eventually provide relief to the
35733 Management of Anastomotic Stricture
Fig. 33.3 Treatment of an established anastomotic stricture includes balloon dilation, self-expanding metal stents, radial strictureplasty by laser, electrocautery, urethroscope, and combination techniques
anastomotic stricture complication; however, fur­ther study is warranted in this regard.
5. New technology such as the memory shaped
alloy requires more study and remains on the
forefront of newest available resources.
To Avoid Anastomotic Strictures in Colorectal Resections
Five Points on Diagnosing and Managing Anastomotic Strictures
1. Recognize anastomoses constructed at < 15 cm above the anal verge have the highest risk.
2. Primary anastomosis should be tension free and well vascularized.
3. Early postoperative dilation prior to stoma closure may alleviate future strictures.
4. Controllable patient risk factors such as smok­ing, alcohol intake, nutritional status, and BMI should be managed prior to surgery when possible.
1. Symptoms: a. Constipation or watery diarrhea b. Pain and/or cramps c. Fractionated evacuation and/or feelings of
incomplete evacuation d. Abdominal distention e. Leakage
2. Diagnosis: a. Colonoscopy and/or fluoroscopy