Risk factors for anastomotic leak after recto-sigmoid resection for ovarian cancer
Introduction
Ovarian cancer is the fourth leading cause of cancer death in women in the United States [1]. The most important predictor of survival in advanced stage disease is residual disease (RD) after primary debulking surgery [2], [3]. A recent paper by Aletti et al. demonstrated that patients with advanced ovarian cancer who were optimally debulked had an improved 5-year survival compared with patients who have RD greater than 1 cm [2]. Accordingly, radical surgical techniques are often employed to achieve optimal debulking. As ovarian cancer commonly presents with confluent tumor in the cul de sac, recto-sigmoid resection (RSR), either alone or en bloc with hysterectomy and bilateral salpingooophorectomy, is often necessary to achieve complete clearance of pelvic disease.
Anastomotic leak after RSR for ovarian cancer is a devastating and life-threatening complication. The leak rate reported in the colorectal literature varies from 2.8 to 23% [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], whereas it ranges from 0.8 to 3.2% in the gynecologic oncology literature [14], [15], [16], [17]. Recent publications indicate the mortality rate after an anastomotic leak ranges from 7.3 to 16% [5], [6], [18]. Multiple preoperative and intraoperative factors have been implicated as increasing the risk of an anastomotic leak, including long operating times, previous pelvic irradiation, and short distance of the anastomosis to the anal verge [11], [13], [19], [20]. Traditionally, selection of patients for protective diverting stomas has been based on assumptions taken from the colorectal literature. However, this extrapolation to ovarian cancer patients may not be appropriate. Most RSR performed for advanced ovarian cancer occur within the context of a long operative time, with extensive abdominal dissection and resection of tumor in patients with diffuse carcinomatosis. Additionally, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) recently recommended that all optimally debulked stage III ovarian cancer patients be offered intraperitoneal chemotherapy [21]. As such, the risk factors for anastomotic leak may be different and the consequences of such a complication may be more severe. While there are several papers in the ovarian cancer literature addressing the safety and efficacy of RSR during cytoreductive surgery, few have provided information that would allow perioperative risk assessment for anastomotic leak. Obermair et al. demonstrated that a serum albumin level less than 3.0 g/dL was associated with increased post-surgical morbidity, including leak, but they were unable to characterize the influence of other potential risk factors for leak such as operative time and blood loss/transfusions [17].
In the present study, we explored the risk factors for anastomotic leak after RSR during debulking surgery in a cohort of consecutively treated patients with primary or recurrent ovarian cancer. Our underlying hypothesis was that patients undergoing secondary debulking or having a low serum albumin would be at increased risk for anastomotic leak. The main objective was to identify the primary risk factors for anastomotic leak in ovarian cancer patients undergoing a RSR as part of a debulking procedure. Our secondary aim was to identify those patients who would benefit from a protective diverting colostomy/ileostomy at the time of RSR with reanastomosis.
Section snippets
Materials and methods
Approval from the Mayo Foundation Institutional Review Board was obtained for this study. Surgery records were searched for all patients who had a large bowel resection during surgery for ovarian or primary peritoneal cancer. All patients who underwent debulking surgery which included a RSR for primary or recurrent ovarian or primary peritoneal cancer between January 1999 and December 2004 at our institution were identified. Exclusion criteria included end colostomy, diverting stoma, and
Results
206 patients met our inclusion criteria, but 2 patients had inadequate postoperative follow-up and were excluded. These two patients were discharged from the hospital on postoperative day number 11 and 12, respectively, and neither was diagnosed with an anastomotic leak prior to hospital discharge. However, we were unable to verify from the medical record that no adverse complications occurred. Additionally, 24 patients had a primary end colostomy and 3 patients had diverting stomas, and so
Discussion
This study of 177 patients undergoing recto-sigmoid resection for ovarian or primary peritoneal cancer represents the largest cohort assembled to analyze risk factors for anastomotic leak in this patient population, to our knowledge. The anastomotic leak rate in this cohort was 6.8%, which is within the range of 2.8–23% reported in the colorectal literature but is higher than the 0.8 to 3.2% reported in the gynecologic oncology literature. Close review of these studies reveals that a fraction
References (33)
- et al.
Anastomotic leakage after low colonic anastomosis
Am. J. Surg.
(1972) - et al.
Anastomotic leakage after low rectal stapler anastomosis: significance of intraoperative anastomotic testing
Eur. J. Surg. Oncol.
(2003) - et al.
Factors associated with the occurrence of leaks in stapled rectal anastomoses: a review of 1,014 patients
J. Am. Coll. Surg.
(1997) - et al.
Radical oophorectomy with primary stapled colorectal anastomosis for resection of locally advanced epithelial ovarian cancer
J. Am. Coll. Surg.
(2003) - et al.
The Western Australian experience of the use of en bloc resection of ovarian cancer with concomitant rectosigmoid colectomy
Gynecol. Oncol.
(2002) - et al.
Morbidity of rectosigmoid resection and primary anastomosis in patients undergoing primary cytoreductive surgery for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer
Gynecol. Oncol.
(2005) - et al.
Safety and efficacy of low anterior en bloc resection as part of cytoreductive surgery for patients with ovarian cancer
Gynecol. Oncol.
(2001) - et al.
Techniques and complications of ileostomy takedown
Am. J. Surg.
(1999) - National Cancer Institute [homepage on the Internet]. Bethesda: A snapshot of ovarian cancer; 2005. Available from...
- et al.
Aggressive surgical effort and improved survival in advanced-stage ovarian cancer
Obstet. Gynecol.
(2006)