Cargando…

Less is more—the best test for anastomotic leaks in rectal cancer patients prior to ileostomy reversal

PURPOSE: No clear consensus exists on how to routinely assess the integrity of the colorectal anastomosis prior to ileostomy reversal. The objective of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of contrast enema, endoscopic procedures, and digital rectal examination in rectal cancer patients in this s...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lindner, Simon, Eitelbuss, Steffen, Hetjens, Svetlana, Gawlitza, Joshua, Hardt, Julia, Seyfried, Steffen, Galata, Christian, Reissfelder, Christoph, Sandra-Petrescu, Flavius, Herrle, Florian
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8505329/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34251505
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00384-021-03963-1
_version_ 1784581512703770624
author Lindner, Simon
Eitelbuss, Steffen
Hetjens, Svetlana
Gawlitza, Joshua
Hardt, Julia
Seyfried, Steffen
Galata, Christian
Reissfelder, Christoph
Sandra-Petrescu, Flavius
Herrle, Florian
author_facet Lindner, Simon
Eitelbuss, Steffen
Hetjens, Svetlana
Gawlitza, Joshua
Hardt, Julia
Seyfried, Steffen
Galata, Christian
Reissfelder, Christoph
Sandra-Petrescu, Flavius
Herrle, Florian
author_sort Lindner, Simon
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: No clear consensus exists on how to routinely assess the integrity of the colorectal anastomosis prior to ileostomy reversal. The objective of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of contrast enema, endoscopic procedures, and digital rectal examination in rectal cancer patients in this setting. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed. Studies assessing at least one index test for which a 2 × 2 table was calculable were included. Hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curves were calculated and used for test comparison. Paired data were used where parameters could not be calculated. Methodological quality was assessed with the QUADAS-2 tool. RESULTS: Two prospective and 11 retrospective studies comprising 1903 patients were eligible for inclusion. Paired data analysis showed equal or better results for sensitivity and specificity of both endoscopic procedures and digital rectal examination compared to contrast enema. Subgroup analysis of contrast enema according to methodological quality revealed that studies with higher methodological quality reported poorer sensitivity for equal specificity and vice versa. No case was described where a contrast enema revealed an anastomotic leak that was overseen in digital rectal examination or endoscopic procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopy and digital rectal examination appear to be the best diagnostic tests to assess the integrity of the colorectal anastomosis prior to ileostomy reversal. Accuracy measures of contrast enema are overestimated by studies with lower methodological quality. Synopsis of existing evidence and risk–benefit considerations justifies omission of contrast enema in favor of endoscopic and clinical assessment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42019107771 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00384-021-03963-1.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8505329
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-85053292021-10-19 Less is more—the best test for anastomotic leaks in rectal cancer patients prior to ileostomy reversal Lindner, Simon Eitelbuss, Steffen Hetjens, Svetlana Gawlitza, Joshua Hardt, Julia Seyfried, Steffen Galata, Christian Reissfelder, Christoph Sandra-Petrescu, Flavius Herrle, Florian Int J Colorectal Dis Review PURPOSE: No clear consensus exists on how to routinely assess the integrity of the colorectal anastomosis prior to ileostomy reversal. The objective of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of contrast enema, endoscopic procedures, and digital rectal examination in rectal cancer patients in this setting. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed. Studies assessing at least one index test for which a 2 × 2 table was calculable were included. Hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curves were calculated and used for test comparison. Paired data were used where parameters could not be calculated. Methodological quality was assessed with the QUADAS-2 tool. RESULTS: Two prospective and 11 retrospective studies comprising 1903 patients were eligible for inclusion. Paired data analysis showed equal or better results for sensitivity and specificity of both endoscopic procedures and digital rectal examination compared to contrast enema. Subgroup analysis of contrast enema according to methodological quality revealed that studies with higher methodological quality reported poorer sensitivity for equal specificity and vice versa. No case was described where a contrast enema revealed an anastomotic leak that was overseen in digital rectal examination or endoscopic procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopy and digital rectal examination appear to be the best diagnostic tests to assess the integrity of the colorectal anastomosis prior to ileostomy reversal. Accuracy measures of contrast enema are overestimated by studies with lower methodological quality. Synopsis of existing evidence and risk–benefit considerations justifies omission of contrast enema in favor of endoscopic and clinical assessment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42019107771 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00384-021-03963-1. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2021-07-12 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC8505329/ /pubmed/34251505 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00384-021-03963-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Review
Lindner, Simon
Eitelbuss, Steffen
Hetjens, Svetlana
Gawlitza, Joshua
Hardt, Julia
Seyfried, Steffen
Galata, Christian
Reissfelder, Christoph
Sandra-Petrescu, Flavius
Herrle, Florian
Less is more—the best test for anastomotic leaks in rectal cancer patients prior to ileostomy reversal
title Less is more—the best test for anastomotic leaks in rectal cancer patients prior to ileostomy reversal
title_full Less is more—the best test for anastomotic leaks in rectal cancer patients prior to ileostomy reversal
title_fullStr Less is more—the best test for anastomotic leaks in rectal cancer patients prior to ileostomy reversal
title_full_unstemmed Less is more—the best test for anastomotic leaks in rectal cancer patients prior to ileostomy reversal
title_short Less is more—the best test for anastomotic leaks in rectal cancer patients prior to ileostomy reversal
title_sort less is more—the best test for anastomotic leaks in rectal cancer patients prior to ileostomy reversal
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8505329/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34251505
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00384-021-03963-1
work_keys_str_mv AT lindnersimon lessismorethebesttestforanastomoticleaksinrectalcancerpatientspriortoileostomyreversal
AT eitelbusssteffen lessismorethebesttestforanastomoticleaksinrectalcancerpatientspriortoileostomyreversal
AT hetjenssvetlana lessismorethebesttestforanastomoticleaksinrectalcancerpatientspriortoileostomyreversal
AT gawlitzajoshua lessismorethebesttestforanastomoticleaksinrectalcancerpatientspriortoileostomyreversal
AT hardtjulia lessismorethebesttestforanastomoticleaksinrectalcancerpatientspriortoileostomyreversal
AT seyfriedsteffen lessismorethebesttestforanastomoticleaksinrectalcancerpatientspriortoileostomyreversal
AT galatachristian lessismorethebesttestforanastomoticleaksinrectalcancerpatientspriortoileostomyreversal
AT reissfelderchristoph lessismorethebesttestforanastomoticleaksinrectalcancerpatientspriortoileostomyreversal
AT sandrapetrescuflavius lessismorethebesttestforanastomoticleaksinrectalcancerpatientspriortoileostomyreversal
AT herrleflorian lessismorethebesttestforanastomoticleaksinrectalcancerpatientspriortoileostomyreversal