Risk factors of anastomotic leakage after robotic surgery for low and mid rectal cancer
10.3760/cma.j.cn.441530-20200212-00052
- VernacularTitle:机器人中低位直肠癌保肛术后吻合口漏发生的影响因素分析
- Author:
Jingwen CHEN
1
;
Wenju CHANG
;
Zhiyuan ZHANG
;
Guodong HE
;
Qingyang FENG
;
Dexiang ZHU
;
Tuo YI
;
Qi LIN
;
Ye WEI
;
Jianmin XU
Author Information
1. 复旦大学附属中山医院普通外科，上海 200032
- Keywords:
Rectal neoplasms;
Robotic Surgery;
Complication;
Anastomotic Leakage;
Risk Factors
- From:
Chinese Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery
2020;23(4):364-369
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To investigate the risk factors associated with anastomotic leakage after robotic surgery in mid-low rectal cancer.Methods:A retrospective case-control study method was conducted. Inclusion criteria: (1) 18 to 80 years old; (2) pathologically confirmed rectal cancer; (3) distance <10 cm from tumor to anal margin; (4) robotic anterior rectal resection. Patients with previous history of colorectal cancer surgery, distant metastases or other malignant tumors, undergoing emergency surgery, with severe abdominal adhesions or those receiving combined organ resection were excluded. Based on the above criteria, 636 patients undergoing robotic radical sphincter-preserving surgery for mid-low rectal cancer in Zhongshan Hospital from January 2015 to December 2018 were included in this study, including 398 males (62.6%) and 238 females (37.4%) with a mean age of (61.9±11.3) years. Sixty-eight cases (10.7%) received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Amony the 636 included patients, 123(19.3%) underwent natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) and 15 (2.3%) underwent preventive stoma. According to the cirteria developed by the International Rectal Cancer Research Group in 2010, the anastomotic leakage was classified as grade A (no requirement of intervention), B (requirement of intervention), and C (requirement of operation). Logistic regression was used to analyze the relationship between anastomotic leakage and clinicopathological factors. Factors in univariate analysis with P<0.05 were included in the multivariate analysis. Results:Anastomotic leakage occurred in 38 cases (6.0%). The grading of anastomotic leakage was grade A in 13 cases (2.0%), grade B in 19 cases (3.0%), and grade C in 6 cases (0.9%). The 3-year disease-free survival rate of patients with anastomotic leakage and without anastomotic leakage was 83.5% and 83.6% respectively ( P=0.862); the 3-year overall survival rate of the two group was 85.1% and 87.5% respectively ( P=0.296). The results of univariate logistic regression analysis showed that male ( P=0.011), longer operation time ( P=0.042), distance ≤5 cm from tumor to anal margin ( P=0.012), more intraoperative blood loss ( P=0.048) were associated with anastomotic leakage (all P<0.05). NOSES was not associated with anastomotic leakage ( P=0.704). Multivariate analysis confirmed that male (OR=3.03, 95%CI: 1.37 to 7.14, P=0.010), operation time ≥180 minutes (OR=2.04, 95%CI: 1.03 to 3.99, P=0.040), distance ≤5 cm from tumor to anal margin (OR=2.56, 95%CI:1.28 to 5.26, P=0.008) were independent risk factors for anastomotic leakage. Conclusion:Male, short distance from tumor to anal margin, and long operation time are independent risk factors for anastomotic leakage in patients undergoing robotic mid-low rectal cancer radical surgeries. These patients need to be cautiously treated during surgery.
