4.1 Review

Early and late anastomotic leak after colorectal surgery: A systematic review of the literature

Journal

CIRUGIA ESPANOLA
Volume 101, Issue 1, Pages 3-11

Publisher

ELSEVIER ESPANA SLU
DOI: 10.1016/j.ciresp.2022.06.014

Keywords

Anastomotic leak; Colorectal surgery; Early anastomotic leakage; Late anastomotic leakage; Risk factors; Morbidity

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this study was to review and assess the quality of scientific articles on early and late anastomotic leak (AL) after colorectal surgery and their risk factors. A systematic search was conducted using the MEDLINE database via PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase. The selected articles were reviewed and assessed for methodological quality using a validated methodology quality score (MINCIR score). The review was registered in the PROSPERO registry. Nine articles were finally reviewed, indicating the differentiation between early and late anastomotic leak based on technical factors and impaired healing.
The aim of this study was to review and to assess the quality of the scientific articles regarding early and late anastomotic leak (AL) after colorectal surgery and their risk factors. An electronic systematic search for articles on Colorectal Surgery, AL and its timing was undertaken using the MEDLINE database via PubMed, Cochrane and Embase. The selected articles were thoroughly reviewed and assessed for methodological quality using a validated methodology quality score (MINCIR score). This review was registered in the PROSPERO registry under ID: CRD42022303012. 9 articles were finally reviewed in relation to the topic of early and late anastomotic leak. There is a lack of consensus regarding the exact cut-off in time to define early and late anastomotic leak, but it is clear that they are two differentiated entities. The first, occurring in relation to technical factors; whereas the latter, is related to impaired healing.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available