CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT02879370TICRANTUpdated Oct 26, 2017

Transanal Inspection and Management of Low ColoRectal Anastomosis Performed With a New Technique

An interventional study of Transanal Inspection and management of low ColoRectal Anastomosis in Anastomotic Leak, sponsored by University of Rome Tor Vergata. Completed at 1 site in Italy. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2017-10-26.

Sponsored by University of Rome Tor Vergata · Not applicable, Interventional, and Prevention

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
53
Allocation
Not applicable
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

The technique the investigators propose to perform colorectal and colo-anal anastomosis in patients underwent low and ultra-low anterior resection for rectal cancer could potentially reduce the anastomotic leakage rate by better trans-anal introduction of the circular stapler, elimination of the previous suture lines and dog ears, combined with direct inspection of the anastomosis, easy performance of trans-anal air leak tests and eventually direct repair of any small anastomotic defects. Another important point in cancer surgery is the easily identification of the distal margin. In fact, this technique is simple to perform, reproducible and safe in terms of complications.

Read the detailed description

-Study design Subjects for this study were prospectively enrolled between January 2013 and January 2016 in the participating centers.

All patients signed written informed consent including the possibility of future publication according to the Italian bioethics laws. Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval has been obtained from the local Ethical Committee of each center in compliance with the Principals of Helsinki Declaration.

-Preoperative assessment and preparation All cases were discussed individually on colorectal multidisciplinary meeting with standard preoperative staging for rectal cancer including; colonoscopy with biopsy, CT chest, and abdomen, MRI pelvis and/or endo-rectal ultrasound. All patients were evaluated preoperative by expert anesthesiologists for individual co-morbidity with classification according to the ASA score.

The day before surgery mechanical bowel preparation with 4 liters of PEG (PolyEthilene Glycol) was administered together with liquid diet. An adequate thromboembolic prophylaxis with low molecular weight heparin was given the evening before the surgery. Antibiotic prophylaxis with second generation cephalosporin was administered at induction of anesthesia.

-Surgical technique The low or ultra-low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision (TME) were performed, either open, laparoscopic, robotic. Just before rectal division, the circular anal dilator (CAD) device was introduced into the anal canal and fixed by four 0-silk suture to the perianal skin apply at the 4 cardinal's points. The rectal inspection was carried out by the Purse Suture Anoscope (PSA) to correctly identify the proximal and distal extension of the tumor. After that the rectum was divided by linear or curved stapler under CAD direct inspection.

Four 2-0 prolene sutures were trans-anally placed on the rectal stump; 2 of them at the extremities of the suture line (left and right) and the other two 1 cm medially to each of the previous two sutures. Circular stapler was introduced through the CAD (29 or 33 mm KOL stapler, Touchstone International Medical Science Co., Ltd.), the 4 tails of the prolene stitches were introduced through the stapler channels (2 in the left and 2 in the right side of the instrument) and gently pulled in order to obtain a gradual and homogeneous traction of the tissue. After elimination of both previous suture lines and dog ears, then the stapler was fired.

The rectal anastomosis was carefully inspected trans-anally then tested intraoperatively by air leak test through trans-anal air insufflation with the pelvis immersed with physiological saline to detect bubbles, and competence of donuts. If the anastomosis was considered safe the need for protective stoma was left to discretion of operating surgeon.

CAD may be removed at the end of the surgery, or left in place for 3-4 days postoperative to provide a safe and fast access for anastomosis inspection as well to reduce the endo-luminal pressure.

  • Postoperative care The postoperative care concise with the standard care for patients who underwent low or ultra-low rectal resection, thromboembolic prophylaxis continued inform of single low molecular weight heparin 5000 IU 8 hours postoperative or according to the risk status of patients. Antibiotics for 3 days postoperative inform of 1 gm 2nd generation cephalosporin. We encourage fast tract surgery inform early feeding and mobilization as described below;

    • 1st POD: removal of the urinary catheter, start mobilization,
    • 2nd POD: start oral fluid,
    • 3rd-4th POD: start semi-solid then solid feeling,
    • 5-6th POD: discharge home (after performing contrast enema or colonoscopy).
  • Definition of anastomotic leak There is no constant definition for anastomotic leak, but we adapted the criteria recently published by Adams and Papagrigoriadis [8]; feculent material from the drain or the wound, extravasation of dye on contrast enema, anastomotic defect visualized by colonoscopy, or the presence of peri-anastomotic air or fluid visualized by CT scan.
  • Patient's fellow-up Patients were followed-up at the outpatient's clinics at one week, two weeks, and at one month postoperative. A further follow-up occurred at time of stoma reversal in patients with diversion in form of colonoscopy to access anastomotic integrity and preoperative anesthetic fitness as usual. Follow-up was continued at twelve months' postoperative by aid of complete colonoscopy.
  • Variables studied and statistical analysis Basic demographic data were recorded including age and sex of patients as well as detailed information on BMI, ASA, stage and distance of the tumor from anal verge, neo-adjuvant chemotherapy, type of surgical approach (open, laparoscopic and robotic procedure), duration of the operation, postoperative hospital stay, postoperative morbidity and mortality. Data were analyzed using excel and SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Science) version 21 programs under Microsoft Windows. Quantitative data were expressed as mean ± SD when possible.
02

Conditions studied

  • Anastomotic Leak

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • Anastomotic Leak
  • Rectal cancer
  • Double stapling technique
03

In context

Anastomotic Leak

209 studies on the registry are indexed under Anastomotic Leak; 60 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 53 is below the median of 121 across 100 interventional studies indexed under Anastomotic Leak.

Browse Anastomotic Leak studies →

Lead sponsor

University of Rome Tor Vergata is the lead sponsor of 94 studies on the registry; 20 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

  • Patients undergoing low or ultra-low anterior resection for biopsy proven primary rectal cancer

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Patients younger than 18 years old,
  • pregnant,
  • recurrent disease,
  • cancer less than 4 cm from the anal verge,
  • abdomeno-perineal resection,
  • emergency surgery
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Prevention
Allocation
Not applicable
Intervention model
Single group
Masking
None (open label)
Enrollment
53 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    TICRANT

    Transanal Inspection and management of low ColoRectal Anastomosis

    Procedure: Transanal Inspection and management of low ColoRectal Anastomosis

Interventions

  • ProcedureTransanal Inspection and management of low ColoRectal Anastomosis

    Low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision (TME), either performed open, laparoscopic or robotic Closure of the rectum with linear or curved stapler with transanal inspection Transanal placement of four 2-0 prolene sutures on the rectal stump, respectively 2 at the extremities of the suture line (left and right) and other two 1 cm medial to each of the previous two sutures Circular stapler is introduced, the 4 tails of the prolene stitches are introduced through the windows (2 in the left and 2 in the right side of the instrument) and gently pulled, to obtain a gradual and homogeneous traction of the tissue and elimination of both previous suture lines and doggy ears, then the stapler is fired The termino-terminal anastomosis is carefully inspected A leak test can be performed (if negative the protective stoma is not performed) An eventual leak can be transanally repaired

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Incidence of anastomotic leakage after intervention

    The authors adapted these criteria for diagnosis of anastomotic leakage; fecal material from the drain or the wound, extravasation of dye on contrast enema, anastomotic defect visualized by colonoscopy, or the presence of peri-anastomotic air or fluid visualized by CT scan.

    Time frame: 1 year

Secondary outcomes

  1. Safety margin after tumor resection

    postoperative pathology of tumor specimen wiyh asscesment of cancer free both radial and distal margins

    Time frame: 1 year

  2. Postoperative morbidities and mortalities

    Overall all deaths or complications occurred during the surgery or 30 days postoperative

    Time frame: 1 year

07

Study locations

1 site
  • University of Rome Tor Vergata
    Rome, RM 00133, Italy
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Dehni N, Schlegel RD, Cunningham C, Guiguet M, Tiret E, Parc R. Influence of a defunctioning stoma on leakage rates after low colorectal anastomosis and colonic J pouch-anal anastomosis. Br J Surg. 1998 Aug;85(8):1114-7. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2168.1998.00790.x. PubMed 9718009 ↗
  • Edwards DP, Leppington-Clarke A, Sexton R, Heald RJ, Moran BJ. Stoma-related complications are more frequent after transverse colostomy than loop ileostomy: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Br J Surg. 2001 Mar;88(3):360-3. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2168.2001.01727.x. PubMed 11260099 ↗
  • Heuschen UA, Hinz U, Allemeyer EH, Autschbach F, Stern J, Lucas M, Herfarth C, Heuschen G. Risk factors for ileoanal J pouch-related septic complications in ulcerative colitis and familial adenomatous polyposis. Ann Surg. 2002 Feb;235(2):207-16. doi: 10.1097/00000658-200202000-00008. PubMed 11807360 ↗
  • Kockerling F, Rose J, Schneider C, Scheidbach H, Scheuerlein H, Reymond MA, Reck T, Konradt J, Bruch HP, Zornig C, Barlehner E, Kuthe A, Szinicz G, Richter HA, Hohenberger W. Laparoscopic colorectal anastomosis: risk of postoperative leakage. Results of a multicenter study. Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery Study Group (LCSSG). Surg Endosc. 1999 Jul;13(7):639-44. doi: 10.1007/s004649901064. PubMed 10384066 ↗
  • Marusch F, Koch A, Schmidt U, Geibetaler S, Dralle H, Saeger HD, Wolff S, Nestler G, Pross M, Gastinger I, Lippert H. Value of a protective stoma in low anterior resections for rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2002 Sep;45(9):1164-71. doi: 10.1007/s10350-004-6384-9. PubMed 12352230 ↗
  • Merad F, Hay JM, Fingerhut A, Yahchouchi E, Laborde Y, Pelissier E, Msika S, Flamant Y. Is prophylactic pelvic drainage useful after elective rectal or anal anastomosis? A multicenter controlled randomized trial. French Association for Surgical Research. Surgery. 1999 May;125(5):529-35. PubMed 10330942 ↗
  • Moran BJ. Stapling instruments for intestinal anastomosis in colorectal surgery. Br J Surg. 1996 Jul;83(7):902-9. doi: 10.1002/bjs.1800830707. PubMed 8813772 ↗
  • Pakkastie TE, Ovaska JT, Pekkala ES, Luukkonen PE, Jarvinen HJ. A randomised study of colostomies in low colorectal anastomoses. Eur J Surg. 1997 Dec;163(12):929-33. PubMed 9449446 ↗
  • Selvasekar CR, Cima RR, Larson DW, Dozois EJ, Harrington JR, Harmsen WS, Loftus EV Jr, Sandborn WJ, Wolff BG, Pemberton JH. Effect of infliximab on short-term complications in patients undergoing operation for chronic ulcerative colitis. J Am Coll Surg. 2007 May;204(5):956-62; discussion 962-3. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2006.12.044. PubMed 17481518 ↗
  • Urbach DR, Kennedy ED, Cohen MM. Colon and rectal anastomoses do not require routine drainage: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 1999 Feb;229(2):174-80. doi: 10.1097/00000658-199902000-00003. PubMed 10024097 ↗
  • Vignali A, Fazio VW, Lavery IC, Milsom JW, Church JM, Hull TL, Strong SA, Oakley JR. Factors associated with the occurrence of leaks in stapled rectal anastomoses: a review of 1,014 patients. J Am Coll Surg. 1997 Aug;185(2):105-13. doi: 10.1016/s1072-7515(97)00018-5. PubMed 9249076 ↗
  • Wexner SD, Cohen SM, Ulrich A, Reissman P. Laparoscopic colorectal surgery--are we being honest with our patients? Dis Colon Rectum. 1995 Jul;38(7):723-7. doi: 10.1007/BF02048029. PubMed 7607032 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: Undecided

09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Oct 26, 2017, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT02879370
Lead sponsor
University of Rome Tor Vergata
Collaborators
San Giuseppe Moscati Hospital, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milano, Casa di Cura San Pio X, Milano, Italy, Policlinico Abano Terme, Ospedale Maggiore, Bologna Italy
Responsible party
Pierpaolo Sileri (MD, PhD, FACS Assistant Professor of Surgery, University of Rome Tor Vergata) — Principal investigator
First posted
Aug 25, 2016
Start date
Jan 2013
Primary completion
Jan 2016
Completion
May 2017
Last update
Oct 26, 2017

Study contacts

Francesco Crafa, MD
study director · San Giuseppe Moscati Hospital
Giovanni Romano, MD
study chair · Fondazione G. Pascale
Jacques Megevand, MD
study chair · Pavia University

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
Yes
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Oct 2017. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion