We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
REVIEW
Utility of intra-operative flexible sigmoidoscopy to assess colorectal anastomosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
ANZ Journal of Surgery 2020 October 6
BACKGROUND: Anastomotic leak (AL) after colorectal resection leads to increased oncological and non-oncological, morbidity and mortality. Intra-operative assessment of a colorectal anastomosis with intra-operative flexible sigmoidoscopy (IOFS) has become increasingly prevalent and is an alternative to conventional air leak test. It is thought that intra-operative identification of an AL or anastomotic bleeding (AB) allows for immediate reparative intervention at the time of anastomosis formation itself. We aim to assess the available evidence for the use of IOFS to prevent complications following colorectal resection.
METHODS: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines, a systematic review of the literature between January 1980 and June 2020 was performed. Comparative studies assessing IOFS versus conventional air leak test were compared, and outcomes were pooled.
RESULTS: A total of 4512 articles were assessed, of which eight were found to meet the inclusion criteria. A total of 1792 patients were compared; 884 in the IOFS arm and 908 in the control arm. IOFS was associated with an increase in the rate of positive leak test (odds ratio (OR) 5.21, P > 0.001), a decrease in AL (OR 0.45, P = 0.006) and a decrease in post-operative AB requiring intervention (OR 0.40, P = 0.037).
CONCLUSION: In a non-randomized meta-analysis, IOFS increases the likelihood of identifying an anastomotic defect or bleeding intra-operatively. This allows for immediate intervention that decreases the rate of AL and AB. This adds impetus for performing routine IOFS after a left-sided colorectal resection with anastomosis and highlights the need for randomized controlled trial to confirm the finding.
METHODS: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines, a systematic review of the literature between January 1980 and June 2020 was performed. Comparative studies assessing IOFS versus conventional air leak test were compared, and outcomes were pooled.
RESULTS: A total of 4512 articles were assessed, of which eight were found to meet the inclusion criteria. A total of 1792 patients were compared; 884 in the IOFS arm and 908 in the control arm. IOFS was associated with an increase in the rate of positive leak test (odds ratio (OR) 5.21, P > 0.001), a decrease in AL (OR 0.45, P = 0.006) and a decrease in post-operative AB requiring intervention (OR 0.40, P = 0.037).
CONCLUSION: In a non-randomized meta-analysis, IOFS increases the likelihood of identifying an anastomotic defect or bleeding intra-operatively. This allows for immediate intervention that decreases the rate of AL and AB. This adds impetus for performing routine IOFS after a left-sided colorectal resection with anastomosis and highlights the need for randomized controlled trial to confirm the finding.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Anti-Arrhythmic Effects of Heart Failure Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy and Their Role in the Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death: From Beta-Blockers to Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors and Beyond.Journal of Clinical Medicine 2024 Februrary 27
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app