The DOI matches its Crossref record.
ANASTOMOTIC LEAKAGE AFTER LOWER GASTROINTESTINAL ANASTOMOSIS: MEN ARE AT A HIGHER RISK
Abstract
Background: Anastomotic leakage is the most important complication specific to intestinal surgery. The aim of this study was to review the anastomotic leakage rates in a single Colorectal Unit and to evaluate the risk factors for anastomotic leakage after lower gastrointestinal anastomosis. Methods: A total of 541 consecutive operations involving anastomoses of the colon and rectum that were carried out between 1999 and 2004 at a single colorectal unit were reviewed. Data concerning 35 variables, relating to patient, tumour and surgical factors, were recorded. Outcomes with respect to anastomotic leakage and mortality were recorded. Data were analysed using univariate and multivariate analyses and odds ratios (OR) calculated. Results: The overall rate of anastomotic leakage was 6.5% (35 of 541). The most frequently carried out operations were right hemicolectomy and anterior resection of the rectum, with leak rates of 2.2 and 7.4%, respectively. Univariate analysis showed that male gender (OR = 3.5), previous abdominal surgery (OR = 2.4), Crohn’s disease (OR = 3.3), rectal cancer ≤12 cm from the anal verge (OR = 5.4) and prolonged operating time (OR = 2.8) were factors significantly associated with anastomotic leakage. Male gender, a history of previous abdominal surgery and the presence of a low cancer remained significant after multivariate analysis. The risk of anastomotic leakage increased when two or more risk factors were present (P < 0.01). The overall mortality was 3.7% and was higher in patients with anastomotic leakage (14.3%; P = 0.01). Conclusions: Male gender, previous abdominal surgery and low rectal cancer are associated with increased anastomotic leakage rates. These have important implications during preoperative patient counselling and decision‐making regarding defunctioning stoma formation.
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
Sørensen, L. T. (2012) · Archives of Surgery · doi:10.1001/archsurg.2012.5 · Cited by 645
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
Risk Factors for Anastomotic Leakage After Anterior Resection for Rectal Cancer
Kang, C. Y., Halabi, W. J., Chaudhry, O. O., Nguyen, V., Pigazzi, A., Carmichael, J. C., Mills, S., & Stamos, M. J. (2013) · JAMA Surgery · doi:10.1001/2013.jamasurg.2 · Cited by 422
Stapled versus handsewn methods for ileocolic anastomoses
Choy, P. Y. G., Bissett, I. P., Docherty, J. G., Parry, B. R., Merrie, A., & Fitzgerald, A. (2011) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd004320.pub3 · Cited by 346
Self-citationTrencheva, K., Morrissey, K. P., Wells, M., Mancuso, C. A., Lee, S. W., Sonoda, T., Michelassi, F., Charlson, M. E., & Milsom, J. W. (2013) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/sla.0b013e318262a6cd · Cited by 323
Metadata
- Authors
- Lipska, M. A., Bissett, I. P., Parry, B. R., & Merrie, A. E. H.
- Venue
- ANZ Journal of Surgery
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2006-06-26
- Volume
- 76
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 579-585
- ISSN
- 1445-1433 (ISSN-L)
- 1445-2197
- OpenAlex
- W2071450936
- Cited by
- 327
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 6.82
- 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: ANASTOMOTIC LEAKAGE AFTER LOWER GASTROINTESTINAL ANASTOMOSIS: MEN ARE AT A HIGHER RISK. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1445-2197.2006.03780.x
- The paper
- Lipska, M. A., Bissett, I. P., Parry, B. R., & Merrie, A. E. H. (2006). ANASTOMOTIC LEAKAGE AFTER LOWER GASTROINTESTINAL ANASTOMOSIS: MEN ARE AT A HIGHER RISK. ANZ Journal of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1445-2197.2006.03780.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.