Analysis of the impact of EEA stapler size on risk of anastomotic complications in colorectal anastomosis: does size matter?

BACKGROUND: Colorectal anastomotic complications are dreaded and dramatically affect outcomes. Causes are multifactorial, with the size of the end-to-end anastomosis (EEA) stapler a modifiable factor and potential target for risk reduction. Our goal was to examine the impact of the EEA stapler size on the risk of anastomotic complications in left-sided colorectal resections. METHODS: A prospective divisional database was reviewed for consecutive elective left-sided resections with a colorectal anastomosis using an EEA stapler from January 2013 May 2018 inclusive. Patients were stratified into 25-29 mm or 30-33 mm cohorts. Patient and disease demographics, operative variables, and postoperative outcomes were evaluated. The main outcome measures were the rate and factors associated with anastomotic complications. RESULTS: Four hundred seventy-three cases were evaluated, 185 ( 39.1%) were in the 25-29 mm group and 288 (60.9%) in the 30-33 mm group. Patients were comparable in demographics and operative variables. More males were anastomosed with the 30-33 mm than with the 25-29 mm stapler (57.6% vs 28.6%, p < 0.01). Significantly more patients developed an anastomotic stricture with the 25-29 mm than with the 30-33 mm staplers (7.1% vs. 2.1%; p = 0.007). There was no significant difference in leak rates or reoperation/interventions between groups. On logistic regression, neither gender, operative indication nor approach were associated with anastomotic leak, readmission, or reoperation/intervention. Stapler size remained significantly associated with stricture (p = 0.032). CONCLUSIONS: The 25-29 mm EEA staplers were associated with an increased rate of anastomotic stricture compared to 30-33 mm staplers in left-sided colorectal anastomoses. As stapler size is a simple process measure that is easily modifyable, this is a potential target for improving anastomotic complication rates. Further controlled trials may help assess the impact of stapler size on improving patient and quality outcomes.

The minimally invasive approach is associated with reduced surgical site infections in obese patients undergoing proctectomy.

BACKGROUND: While laparoscopic colorectal resection may be underused in technically challenging circumstances, the minimally invasive approach may in fact maximally benefit patients at the greatest risk of complications. Obesity and proctectomy pose particular technical challenges during laparoscopic resection and are also associated with the greatest risks of complications, especially surgical site infections (SSIs). We evaluated the role of laparoscopy in minimizing SSI in such patients. METHODS: From the American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database, outcomes for obese [body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 kg/m(2)] and non-obese (BMI < 30 kg/m(2)) patients undergoing colectomy or proctectomy between 2006 and 2011 by the laparoscopic (laparoscopic colectomy, laparoscopic proctectomy) or open (open colectomy, open proctectomy) approaches were compared. A univariate analysis was used to determine the influence of laparoscopic surgery within each group on SSI, and a multivariate analysis evaluated the influence of laparoscopy on SSI for obese patients undergoing proctectomy. RESULTS: OC patients were more likely than OP, LC, and LP, respectively, to undergo emergency operation and have an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score of 3-5. Overall SSI rates after OC, OP, LC, and LP were 15.2, 17.6, 8.6, and 10.1 %, respectively (p < 0.001), and for obese patients, the rates were 18.7, 22.3, 10.7, and 13.3 % (p < 0.001). On univariate analysis, open surgery, obesity, proctectomy, younger age, race, steroid use, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, prior wound infection, transfusion history, previous operation within 30 days, coronary artery or vascular disease, ASA class 3-5, tobacco use, resident involvement, male gender, albumin <3.5 g/dL, and emergent operation were associated with a higher risk of SSI. Laparoscopy reduced the risk of SSI by at least 35 % across all BMI classes and procedures, an effect that persisted on multivariate analysis even in obese patients undergoing proctectomy. CONCLUSIONS: In colorectal surgery, an already high-risk outlier for SSI, obesity and proctectomy are associated with the highest risk of SSI. Despite the particular technical challenges of laparoscopy in these circumstances, the minimally invasive approach attenuates the risk of SSI in these high-risk patients and thus should be strongly considered during treatment planning.