[Anastomotic complications in the surgical treatment of rectal neoplasms].
P Lolli, D Piccinelli, M Mainente, Daniele Tosi, M Giarolli, G Merico, De Santis L, S Massari, Dagradi
Abstract
P Lolli, D Piccinelli, M Mainente, Daniele Tosi, M Giarolli, G Merico, De Santis L, S Massari, Dagradi
Abstract
The authors review the problems relating to the healing of colorectal anastomotic complications following anterior resection. They report on their own experience with 328 anastomoses, 281 of which constructed manually and 47 using a mechanical suturing gun. Following manual anastomosis, the reported incidence of clinical dehiscence was 1%, as against a 10.3% incidence of radiologically detectable dehiscence. In the cases of mechanically produced anastomoses the incidence of clinical dehiscence was 6.4%. In 2 cases stenosis developed as a result of the clinically manifest dehiscence following manual anastomosis. In the patients undergoing mechanical anastomosis, occlusion occurred in one case and stenosis in another, without any concomitant peri-anastomotic inflammatory processes; these complications were caused by a membrane extending between the margins of the anastomosis. The authors ascribe the greater incidence of clinically important dehiscence following mechanical anastomosis to a greater sensitivity of the mechanical suture to colonic contamination compared to the manual suture. According to the authors, the stenosis is attributable to inflammatory processes resulting from the dehiscence in the manual anastomosis cases and from the anastomotic structure in the mechanical-suture case.
A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
The authors review the problems relating to the healing of colorectal anastomotic complications following anterior resection. They report on their own experience with 328 anastomoses, 281 of which constructed manually and 47 using a mechanical suturing gun. Following manual anastomosis, the reported incidence of clinical dehiscence was 1%, as against a 10.3% incidence of radiologically detectable dehiscence. In the cases of mechanically produced anastomoses the incidence of clinical dehiscence was 6.4%. In 2 cases stenosis developed as a result of the clinically manifest dehiscence following manual anastomosis. In the patients undergoing mechanical anastomosis, occlusion occurred in one case and stenosis in another, without any concomitant peri-anastomotic inflammatory processes; these complications were caused by a membrane extending between the margins of the anastomosis. The authors ascribe the greater incidence of clinically important dehiscence following mechanical anastomosis to a greater sensitivity of the mechanical suture to colonic contamination compared to the manual suture. According to the authors, the stenosis is attributable to inflammatory processes resulting from the dehiscence in the manual anastomosis cases and from the anastomotic structure in the mechanical-suture case.
Key concepts: Medicine, Anastomosis, Dehiscence, Stenosis, Surgery, Fibrous joint, Incidence (geometry), Occlusion