The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Systematic review of the definition and measurement of anastomotic leak after gastrointestinal surgery
Abstract
Background: Anastomotic leak after gastrointestinal surgery is an important postoperative event that leads to significant morbidity and mortality. Postoperative leak rates are frequently used as an indicator of the quality of surgical care provided. Comparison of rates between and within institutions depends on the use of standard definitions and methods of measurement of anastomotic leak. The aim of this study was to review the definition and measurement of anastomotic leak after oesophagogastric, hepatopancreaticobiliary and lower gastrointestinal surgery. Methods: A systematic review was undertaken of the published literature. Searches were carried out on five bibliographical databases (Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index for Nursing and Allied Health Literature and HealthSTAR) for English language articles published between 1993 and 1999. Articles were critically appraised by two independent reviewers and data on definition and measurement of anastomotic leak were extracted. Results: Ninety-seven studies were reviewed and a total of 56 separate definitions of anastomotic leak were identified at three sites: upper gastrointestinal (13 definitions), hepatopancreaticobiliary (14) and lower gastrointestinal (29). The majority of studies used a combination of clinical features and radiological investigations to define and detect anastomotic leak. Conclusion: There is no universally accepted definition of anastomotic leak at any site. The definitions and values used to measure anastomotic failure vary extensively and preclude accurate comparison of rates between studies and institutions.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Dindo, D., Demartines, N., & Clavien, P.-A. (2004) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae · Cited by 31,378
Matthiessen, P., Hallböök, O., Rutegård, J., Simert, G., & Sjödahl, R. (2007) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/sla.0b013e3180603024 · Cited by 1,123
Walker, K. G., Bell, S. W., Rickard, M. J. F. X., Mehanna, D., Dent, O. F., Chapuis, P. H., & Bokey, E. L. (2004) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/01.sla.0000133186.81222.08 · Cited by 451
The chemistry of tissue adhesive materials
Bouten, P. J. M., Zonjee, M., Bender, J., Yauw, S. T. K., van Goor, H., van Hest, J. C. M., & Hoogenboom, R. (2014) · Progress in Polymer Science · doi:10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2014.02.001 · Cited by 448
Eriksen, M. T., Wibe, A., Norstein, J., Haffner, J., Wiig, J. N., & the Norwegian Rectal Cancer Group (2005) · Colorectal Disease · doi:10.1111/j.1463-1318.2004.00700.x · Cited by 351
Metadata
- Authors
- Bruce, J., Krukowski, Z. H., Al-Khairy, G., Russell, E. M., & Park, K. G. M.
- Venue
- Journal of British Surgery
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2001-09-01
- Volume
- 88
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1157-1168
- ISSN
- 0007-1323 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2168
- OpenAlex
- W2123834062
- Cited by
- 727
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 0.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Systematic review of the definition and measurement of anastomotic leak after gastrointestinal surgery. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.0007-1323.2001.01829.x
- The paper
- Bruce, J., Krukowski, Z. H., Al-Khairy, G., Russell, E. M., & Park, K. G. M. (2001). Systematic review of the definition and measurement of anastomotic leak after gastrointestinal surgery. Journal of British Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0007-1323.2001.01829.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.