Does transanal drainage tubes placement have an impact on the incidence of anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer surgery? a systematic review and meta-analysis

Liu, Yating; Hu, Xuhua; Huang, Yu; Yin, Xu; Zhang, Pengfei; Hao, Yaoguang; Li, Hongyan; Wang, Guiying

doi:10.1186/s12885-024-11990-8

Table 2 Characteristics of included studies

From: Does transanal drainage tubes placement have an impact on the incidence of anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer surgery? a systematic review and meta-analysis

Author	Year	Nation	Age (year)	Sample size (tube/ no tube)	Study type	NOS	Tumor location (Above the anal verge)	Type of surgery	Stapling technique	The rate of AL		Type of tube	Indwelling time of tube (days)	Position of tube (above the anastomosis)	Decision to remove	Diverting stoma		Preoperative chemotherapy or radiotherapy
Author	Year	Nation	Age (year)	Sample size (tube/ no tube)	Study type	NOS	Tumor location (Above the anal verge)	Type of surgery	Stapling technique	tube	no tube	Type of tube	Indwelling time of tube (days)	Position of tube (above the anastomosis)	Decision to remove	TDT	Non-TDT	TDT	Non-TDT
Zhao et al	2013	China	Unmentioned	81/77	nRCT	≤ 7	Unmentioned	LAR	Single- or double-stapler technique	2/81	7/77	A 26Fr rubber drainage tube	5–6 POD	3-5 cm	b	Excluded		Excluded
Xiao et al	2011	China	46–70	200/198	RCT	> 7	≤ 15 cm	LAR	Double-stapling anastomosis	8/200	19/198	A silicone drainage tube	5–7 POD	Unmentioned	Unmentioned	Excluded		Excluded
Tamura et al	2021	Japan	39–91	79/78	RCT	> 7	≤ 15 cm	LLAR	Double stapling technique	6/79	8/78	A 20-24Fr Malecot latex tubes	5 POD	3–5 cm	a	34/79	37/78	10 d/79	19 d/78
Challine et al	2020	France	48.2–76.2	72/72	PCS	≤ 7	Unmentioned	LLAR	Double-stapling technique or handsewn	25/72	16/72	A 22Fr Foley catheter	4 POD	Unmentioned	Unmentioned	0/72	72/72	41 d/72	47 d/72
Bu¨low et al	2006	Denmark	37–90	98/96	RCT	> 7	≤ 15 cm	Unmentioned	Unmentioned	14/98	8/96	A transanal silicone stent	Unmentioned	Unmentioned	Unmentioned	44/98	45/96	Excluded
Zhao et al	2021	China	52–69	280/280	RCT	> 7	5.6-9 cm	LLAR	Double-stapling technique	18/280	19/280	A 28Fr silicone tube	3–7 POD	5 cm	a	72/280	89/280	12c/480	16c/480
Liang et al	2022	China	42.9–70.2	80/83	PCS	≤ 7	0.5–8.8 cm	Unmentioned	Unmentioned	8/80	10/83	A novel endo-luminal balloon-assisted drainage (EBAD)	5–6 POD	5 cm	b	0/80	83/83	43d/80	53 d/83

RCT Randomized controlled trials, nRCT non-randomized controlled trials, NOS The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale, PCS Prospective Cohort study, POD postoperative day, LAR low anterior resection, LLAR laparoscopic low anterior resection
a. if the patients had no signs of AL
b. if fecal discharge and gas were continuously observed in transanal drainage fluid but not in the abdominal drainage fluid following the recovery of gastrointestinal function
c. Preoperative chemotherapy
d. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy

Back to article page

ISSN: 1471-2407

Contact us

Submission enquiries: bmccancer@biomedcentral.com
General enquiries: ORSupport@springernature.com

BMC Cancer

Contact us