Prevention, Recognition, and Management of Anastomotic Leakage and Pelvic Sepsis After Rectal Cancer Surgery: A Structured Narrative Review

Résumé fourni par la source

Anastomotic leakage (AL) and pelvic sepsis remain important causes of morbidity after restorative rectal cancer surgery, affecting mortality, stoma-free survival, bowel function, and oncologic treatment. Reported rates after low anterior resection are approximately 5-20%. We conducted a structured narrative review of PubMed/MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library through 20 July 2026, focusing on prevention, recognition, source control, and long-term recovery after low pelvic reconstruction. Most biological requirements for healing and principles of source control are approach-agnostic, whereas open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgeries create different technical conditions for pelvic exposure, stapler trajectory, articulation, tactile feedback, conversion, and fluorescence imaging. This review therefore integrates approach-specific technical constraints with post-discharge recognition, anatomy-based source control, and patient-centered long-term outcomes rather than treating these domains separately. Among preventive measures, combined mechanical bowel preparation and oral antibiotics has the strongest support in elective, non-obstructed patients; indocyanine green fluorescence is a useful adjunct when perfusion is uncertain but does not replace assessment of tension or mechanical integrity. C-reactive protein is mainly useful for ruling out major complications, whereas contrast-enhanced computed tomography remains first-line imaging and pelvic magnetic resonance imaging is best reserved for selected small defects, chronic sinuses, or complex pelvic sepsis. Management should be driven first by physiology and then by leak timing and location, defect size, conduit viability, diversion status, and cavity drainability. Durable success includes sepsis control, anatomical healing, stoma reversal when feasible, and acceptable long-term function.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.