Skip to main content
. 2022 May 30;109(9):822–831. doi: 10.1093/bjs/znac158

Table 3.

Pooled outcomes after endoscopic vacuum therapy in patients with pelvic anastomotic leakage

Total No ESC ESC
No. of studies n Pooled value (%)* No. of studies n Pooled value (%)* No. of studies n Pooled value (%)*
Interval from surgery to AL diagnosis (days) 16 272 20.2 (15.9, 24.6)† 12 198 23.5 (17.2, 29.9)† 3 54 15 (8.3, 22.5)†
Interval from surgery to EVT (days) 15 265 35.9 (27.8, 44.0)† 11 191 38.3 (28.8, 47.8)† 3 54 23 (9.1, 37.0)†
No. of sponges used 26 710 9.1 (7.0, 11.3)† 22 636 9.8 (7.3, 12.3)† 3 54 4 (2.7, 4.6)†
Anastomotic function
 Restored continuity (%) 22 578 66.8 (58.8, 73.9) 18 505 64.7 (55.7, 72.7) 3 54 82.0 (50.1, 95.4)
 Time to restored continuity (months)‡ 7 114 5.1 (3.3, 6.9)† 3 51 4 (2.5, 4.9)† 3 43 2 (0.9, 4.0)†
Complications
 Procedure-related 25 516 6.7 (4.7, 9.6) 22 461 10.2 (6.7, 15.1) 2 48 2 (0, 0.1)
 Late (during follow-up) 21 440 10.8 (6.8, 16.7) 18 372 9.7 (6.0, 15.3) 2 48 14 (1.0, 72.3)

Values in parentheses are 95 per cent confidence intervals. *Unless indicated otherwise; †mean. ‡After diagnosis of anastomotic leakage (AL). ESC, early surgical closure; n, number of patients; EVT, endoscopic vacuum therapy.