Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 652

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Anastomotic Leaks After Intestinal Anastomosis: It??s Later Than You Think

Open access
Hyman, Neil, Manchester, Thomas L., Osler, Turner, Burns, Betsy, Cataldo, Peter A.·2007·Annals of Surgery

Abstract

PURPOSE: Anastomotic leaks are among the most dreaded complications after colorectal surgery. However, problems with definitions and the retrospective nature of previous analyses have been major limitations. We sought to use a prospective database to define the true incidence and presentation of anastomotic leakage after intestinal anastomosis. METHODS: A prospective database of two colorectal surgeons was reviewed over a 10-year period (1995-2004). The incidence of leak by surgical site, timing of diagnosis, method of detection, and treatment was noted. Complications were entered prospectively by a nurse practitioner directly involved in patient care. Standardized criteria for diagnosis were used. A logistic regression model was used to discriminate statistical variation. RESULTS: A total of 1223 patients underwent resection and anastomosis during the study period. Mean age was 59.1 years. Leaks occurred in 33 patients (2.7%). Diagnosis was made a mean of 12.7 days postoperatively, including four beyond 30 days (12.1%). There was no difference in leak rate by surgeon (3.6% vs. 2.2%; P = 0.08). The leak rate was similar by surgical site except for a markedly increased leak rate with ileorectal anastomosis (P = 0.001). Twelve leaks were diagnosed clinically versus 21 radiographically. Contrast enema correctly identified only 4 of 10 leaks, whereas CT correctly identified 17 of 19. A total of 14 of 33 (42%) patients had their leak diagnosed only after readmission. Fifteen patients required fecal diversion, whereas 18 could be managed nonoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: Anastomotic leaks are frequently diagnosed late in the postoperative period and often after initial hospital discharge, highlighting the importance of prospective data entry and adequate follow-up. CT scan is the preferred diagnostic modality when imaging is required. More than half of leaks can be managed without fecal diversion.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/01.sla.0000225083.27182.85

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

See all 652

Metadata

Authors
Hyman, N., Manchester, T. L., Osler, T., Burns, B., & Cataldo, P. A.
Venue
Annals of Surgery
Published
2007-02
Volume
245
Issue
2
Pages
254-258
ISSN
0003-4932 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2016288162
Cited by
652
References
0
FWCI
9.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Anastomotic Leaks After Intestinal Anastomosis: It??s Later Than You Think. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01.sla.0000225083.27182.85
The paper
Hyman, N., Manchester, T. L., Osler, T., Burns, B., & Cataldo, P. A. (2007). Anastomotic Leaks After Intestinal Anastomosis: It??s Later Than You Think. Annals of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000225083.27182.85

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.