32 Chapter 2 Table 1. Continued Author Year Country Study design Number of patients* Number of studies Aim of the study Type of resections included Blanco-Colino et al. 27 2018 Spain SR and MA 1302 5 To evaluate AL rates using ICG fluorescence imaging vs standard surgical care in CRC surgery. LAR with TME, right colectomy, left colectomy, sphincter-saving resection Boelens et al. 28 2014 The Netherlands RCT 123 N/A To investigate whether early enteral nutrition (EEN), as a bridge to a normal diet, can reduce postoperative ileus. LAR, APR, Hartmann procedure Bretagnol et al. 29 2010 France RCT 178 N/A To assess postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing sphincter-saving rectal resection for cancer without preoperative MBP. Mesorectal excision, sphinctersaving resection Brisinda et al. 30 2009 Italy RCT 77 N/A To compare surgical outcomes of end-to-end and end-to-side anastomosis after AR for T1 – T2 rectal cancer. AR with TME or PME Brown et al. 31 2001 Singapore RCT 59 N/A To assess the effect of prophylactic drainage after LAR when anastomoses are located below the peritoneal reflection. LAR with total- or wide mesorectal excision Bülow et al. 32 2006 Denmark RCT 194 N/A To compare AL rates after AR with a loop ileostomy vs transanal stenting vs both vs neither. Anterior resection Cong et al. 33 2015 China SR 16178 37 To evaluate AL requiring laparotomy and the associated rate of diverting stoma in initial AR for rectal cancer. (ultra)LAR, sphincter-saving resection Cong et al. 34 2014 China SR and MA 24232 39 To evaluate AL requiring reoperation and compare mortality in patients with AL relative to overall postoperative mortality after AR for rectal carcinoma. AR
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw