The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after resection of rectal cancer
Abstract
Background: The most important surgical complication following rectal resection with anastomosis is symptomatic anastomotic leakage, which is associated with a 6–22 per cent mortality rate. The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the risk factors for clinical anastomotic leakage after anterior resection for cancer of the rectum. Methods: From 1980 to 1995, 272 consecutive anterior resections for rectal cancer were performed by the same surgical team; 131 anastomoses were situated 5 cm or less from the anal verge. The associations between clinical anastomotic leakage and 19 patient-, tumour-, surgical- and treatment-related variables were studied by univariate and multivariate analysis. Results: The rate of clinical anastomotic leakage was 12 per cent (32 of 272). Multivariate analysis of the overall population showed that only male sex and level of anastomosis were independent factors for development of anastomotic leakage. The risk of leakage was 6·5 times higher for anastomoses situated less than 5 cm from the anal verge than for those situated above 5 cm; it was 2·7 times higher for men than for women. In a second analysis of low anastomoses (5 cm or less from the anal verge; n = 131), obesity was statistically associated with leakage. Conclusion: A protective stoma is suitable after sphincter-saving resection for rectal cancer for anastomoses situated at or less than 5 cm from the anal verge, particularly for men and obese patients.
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
Matthiessen, P., Hallböök, O., Rutegård, J., Simert, G., & Sjödahl, R. (2007) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/sla.0b013e3180603024 · Cited by 1,123
Risk factors for anastomotic failure after total mesorectal excision of rectal cancer
Peeters, K. C. M. J., Tollenaar, R. A. E. M., Marijnen, C. A. M., Klein Kranenbarg, E., Steup, W. H., Wiggers, T., Rutten, H. J., & van de Velde, C. J. H. (2005) · Journal of British Surgery · doi:10.1002/bjs.4806 · Cited by 659
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Role of Defunctioning Stoma in Low Rectal Cancer Surgery
Hüser, N., Michalski, C. W., Erkan, M., Schuster, T., Rosenberg, R., Kleeff, J., & Friess, H. (2008) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/sla.0b013e318176bf65 · Cited by 616
Meta-analysis of defunctioning stomas in low anterior resection for rectal cancer
Tan, W. S., Tang, C. L., Shi, L., & Eu, K. W. (2009) · British Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1002/bjs.6594 · Cited by 478
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
- Rullier, E., Laurent, C., Garrelon, J. L., Michel, P., Saric, J., & Parneix, M.
- Venue
- Journal of British Surgery
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1998-03-01
- Volume
- 85
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 355-358
- ISSN
- 0007-1323 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2168
- OpenAlex
- W1509470174
- Cited by
- 895
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 5.49
- 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: Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after resection of rectal cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-2168.1998.00615.x
- The paper
- Rullier, E., Laurent, C., Garrelon, J. L., Michel, P., Saric, J., & Parneix, M. (1998). Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after resection of rectal cancer. Journal of British Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2168.1998.00615.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.