4.4 Review

The use of Endo-SPONGE(R) in rectal anastomotic leaks: a systematic review

Journal

TECHNIQUES IN COLOPROCTOLOGY
Volume 24, Issue 7, Pages 685-694

Publisher

SPRINGER-VERLAG ITALIA SRL
DOI: 10.1007/s10151-020-02200-1

Keywords

Endo-SPONGE; Vacuum therapy; Rectal cancer; Anastomotic leak

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of an endoluminal vacuum device (Endo-SPONGE(R)) in the treatment of rectal anastomotic leaks. Methods All studies looking at endoluminal vacuum therapy with Endo-SPONGE(R) in the treatment of rectal anastomotic leaks were included. A comprehensive search was conducted as per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Primary outcome was defined as the rate of total anastomotic salvage, with secondary outcomes including rate of ileostomy closure, additional transrectal closures and functional outcomes Results Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria. There was a significant publication bias (z = 3.53, p = 0.0004). Two hundred sixty-six patients were identified. The median treatment failure rate was 11.8% (range 0-44%), with random effects model of 0.17 (95% CI 0.11-0.22). There was improvement with early therapy start (OR 3.48) and negative correlation with neoadjuvant radiotherapy (OR 0.56). Fifty-one percent of all diverting stomas were closed at the end of treatment period and 12.8% of patients required an additional trans-rectal closure of the abscess cavity. Conclusions Endo-SPONGE(R) seems to be a useful method of rectal anastomotic leak treatment in selected group of patients; however, the quality of available data is poor and it is impossible to draw a final conclusion. There is unexpected high rate of permanent ileostomy. There is a need for further assessment of this therapy with well-designed randomised or cohort studies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available