Abstract:Background and objectives: Anastomotic leakage (AL) is one of the most serious complications after laparoscopic anus-preserving surgery for rectal cancer, which significantly prolongs the patient's hospital stay, leads to dysfunction, and even increases the patient's perioperative morbidity and mortality, and little is known about the effectiveness of anastomotic reinforcement sutures to prevent AL. Thus, this study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of anastomotic reinforcement sutures as a means to prevent AL during laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. Methods: A comprehensive and systematic search was performed in the literature database by combining subject and free terms up to 10 October 2023. The overall literature included was integrated and analyzed using Stata 12.0 software and Review Manager version 5.4 software to assess the effect of anastomotic reinforcement sutures on the incidence of AL. Results: A total of 2,452 patients from 14 studies were included, and an integrated analysis showed that the use of anastomotic reinforcement sutures significantly reduced the incidence of AL [odds ratio (OR) = 0.26; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.18–0.37; P < 0.00001; I 2 = 0%]. However, the findings confirmed whether or not the anastomosis reinforced with sutures did not affect the incidence of anastomotic stenosis (OR = 0.69; 95% CI, 0.37–1.32; P = 0.27; I 2 = 0%). We performed subgroup analyses of the results of the study, the randomized controlled studies (OR = 0.31; 95% CI, 0.15–0.65; P < 0.001) as well as retrospective studies (OR = 0.28; 95% CI, 0.19–0.41; P < 0.001), 3–0 sutures (OR = 0.28; 95% CI, 0.17–0.45; P < 0.001) versus 4–0 sutures (OR = 0.26; 95% CI, 0.13–0.53; P < 0.001), barbed wire sutures (OR = 0.26; 95% CI, 0.14–0.48; P < 0.001) versus non-barbed wire sutures (OR = 0.30; 95% CI, 0.20–0.46; P < 0.001), interrupted (OR = 0.30, 95% CI, 0.20–0.46; P < 0.001) versus continuous sutures (OR = 0.29, 95% CI, 0.16–0.51; P < 0.001) to the anastomosis, full-thickness suture (OR = 0.29; 95% CI, 0.16–0.51; P < 0.001) versus sutured with the seromuscular layer (OR = 0.27; 95% CI, 0.14–0.53; P < 0.001), anastomotic sutured in one (OR = 0.27; 95% CI, 0.14–0.53; P < 0.001) versus non-one circle (OR = 0.30; 95% CI, 0.20–0.44; P < 0.001), and reinforcing sutures to the dog-ear area (OR = 0.26; 95% CI, 0.14–0.50; P < 0.001) versus the non–dog-ear area (OR = 0.30; 95% CI, 0.20–0.45; P < 0.001), which have suggested that there is no significant difference between each other and that all of them reduce the incidence of AL. Conclusions: This study provides evidence that performing reinforcement suturing of the anastomosis during laparoscopic rectal surgery significantly lowers the incidence of postoperative AL but has no significant effect on anastomotic stenosis. It is important to note that further randomized controlled studies are required to confirm this conclusion. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42022368631.

Safety and efficiency of side-to-end anastomosis versus straight colorectal anastomosis in low anterior resections

Safety of the Stent-Based Diverting Technique after Low Anterior Resection in Patients with Rectal Cancer

Clinical Analysis of 9 Cases of a Novel Stent Assisted Intestinal Bypass for Preventing Anastomotic Leakage in Laparoscopic Assisted Radical Resection of Rectal Cancer

Safety and efficacy of side-to-end anastomosis versus colonic J-pouch anastomosis in sphincter-preserving resections: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

The Efficacy of Intraoperative ICG Fluorescence Angiography on Anastomotic Leak after Resection for Colorectal Cancer: a Meta-Analysis

The application of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with preservation of anal sphincter for rectal cancer

Effectiveness of anastomotic reinforcement sutures in reducing anastomotic leakage risk after laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: a pooled and integration analysis

Clinical Evaluation of Laparoscopic Abdominoperineal Resection for Cancer of the Low Rectum

The incidence and risk factors of low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) after sphincter-preserving surgery of rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

[Research Progress of Different Bowel Reconstructions for Postoperative Functional Protection During Low Anterior Resections of Rectal Cancer].

[Analysis of the incidence and symptomatology of low anterior resection syndrome after laparoscopic anterior resection for rectal cancer].

Effect of Intra- and Out-Anorectal Drainage in the Prevention of Anastomotic Leakage after Low Anterior Resection

Extralevator Abdominoperineal Excision Versus Abdominoperineal Excision for Low Rectal Cancer: a Meta-Analysis.

[Incidence and risk factors for anastomotic leakage after anterior resection for rectal cancer].

[Meta-Analysis for High-Risk Factor of Anastomotic Leakage after Anal-Preserving Surgery for Rectal Cancer].

Standardized pelvic drainage of anastomotic leaks following anterior resection without diversional stomas.

Prospective controlled study of the safety and oncological outcomes of ELAPE procure with definitive anatomic landmarks versus conventional APE for lower rectal cancer.

The effect of anastomotic leak on postoperative pelvic function and quality of life in rectal cancer patients

Comparing the long‐term follow‐up anal function between robot‐assisted and laparoscopic surgery for low rectal cancer: A meta‐analysis and systematic review

Safety and efficacy of left colic artery preservation in laparoscopic anterior resection for lower rectal cancer

Extralevator Abdominoperineal Excision for Low Rectal Cancer: a Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis of the Short‐term Outcome