Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Comparison Between Endoscopic Vacuum Therapy and Conventional Treatment for Leakage After Rectal Resection
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Comparison Between Endoscopic Vacuum Therapy and Conventional Treatment for Leakage After Rectal Resection
Do you wish to request the book?
Comparison Between Endoscopic Vacuum Therapy and Conventional Treatment for Leakage After Rectal Resection
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Comparison Between Endoscopic Vacuum Therapy and Conventional Treatment for Leakage After Rectal Resection
2020
Overview
Background
Anastomotic leakage after rectal resection represents a severe complication for the patient and requires an early and appropriate management. Endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT) has become the treatment of choice for anastomotic leakage after rectal resection in several institutions in Germany, and commercially available systems are currently distributed in approximately 30 countries worldwide. However, there is no evidence that EVT is superior to any other treatment for anastomotic leakage after rectal resection.
Methods
Twenty-one patients treated with EVT for anastomotic leakage after rectal resection were retrospectively compared to a historical cohort of 41 patients that received conventional treatment. Primary endpoints were death, treatment success and long-term preservation of intestinal continuity. Secondary endpoints were length of hospital stay and duration of treatment.
Results
There was no difference in mortality (
p
= 0.624). The intention-to-treat analysis showed a significantly higher success rate of EVT compared to conventional treatment (95.2% vs. 65.9%,
p
= 0.011). EVT was associated with preservation of intestinal continuity in a significant higher percentage of patients than patients undergoing conventional treatment (86.7% vs. 37.5%,
p
= 0.001). Conventional treatment tended to a shorter length of hospital stay (31.1 vs. 42.2 days,
p
= 0.066) but with no difference in overall duration of treatment. Time until closing of a diverting stoma did not differ between groups (10.2 months in the EVT group vs. 9.4 months in the conventional treatment group,
p
= 0.721).
Conclusion
According to this retrospective study, conventional therapy and EVT are both options for the treatment of anastomotic leakage after rectal resection. EVT might be more effective in terms of definite healing and preservation of intestinal continuity.
