Cargando…

A rare case of repeated anastomotic recurrence due to tumor implantation after curative surgery for sigmoid colon cancer

BACKGROUND: Anastomotic recurrence is often experienced at colocolic or colorectal anastomoses. Tumor cell implantation has been reported as the mechanism of anastomotic recurrence. However, anastomotic recurrence occurring repeatedly after curative surgery is rare. We herein report a rare case of r...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Funahashi, Kimihiko, Koike, Junichi, Saito, Naoyasu, Shiokawa, Hiroyuki, Shirasaka, Kentaro, Teramoto, Tatsuo
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2007
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1994957/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17683596
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7819-5-91
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Anastomotic recurrence is often experienced at colocolic or colorectal anastomoses. Tumor cell implantation has been reported as the mechanism of anastomotic recurrence. However, anastomotic recurrence occurring repeatedly after curative surgery is rare. We herein report a rare case of repeated anastomotic recurrence after curative surgery for sigmoid colon cancer. CASE PRESENTATION: A 51-year-old man underwent radical surgery for sigmoid colon cancer. However, anastomotic recurrence developed three times during three years and six months after the initial operation in spite of irrigation with 5% povidone-iodine before anastomosis. The serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) level had been within normal limits after sigmoidectomy. Finally, the patient underwent abdominoperineal resection. The clinico-pathological findings revealed that possible tumor cell implantation caused these anastomotic recurrences. The patients survived without recurrence during the follow-up period of seven years and nine months. CONCLUSION: We experienced a rare case of repeated anastomotic recurrence due to possible tumor implantation after curative surgery for sigmoid colon cancer; however the prognosis was ultimately very good. CEA monitoring was insensitive for detection of anastomotic recurrence in this case.