Reinforced Versus Conventional Anastomosis in Laparoscopic Low Rectal Cancer Resection: A Comparative Study

Enrolling by invitation · Not applicable

Conditions studied: Low Rectal Cancer, Rectal Neoplasms, Colorectal Cancer

In brief

Study Description This prospective, controlled clinical study aims to compare the clinical outcomes of reinforced anastomosis using 8-10 interrupted sutures versus the conventional Dixon procedure in patients undergoing laparoscopic low anterior resection for low rectal cancer. Anastomotic leakage remains one of the most significant postoperative complications following low rectal cancer surgery, particularly in laparoscopic procedures due to limited tactile feedback and maneuverability in the pelvic cavity. Reinforcement of the anastomotic site through additional interrupted suturing may provide better mechanical strength and improved healing, potentially reducing the incidence of anastomotic leakage and related morbidities. In this study, eligible patients will be assigned to receive either a conventional laparoscopic Dixon procedure or the same procedure with added reinforcement of the anastomosis using 8-10 interrupted sutures circumferentially. Perioperative outcomes including the rate of anastomotic leakage, postoperative complications, operation time, length of hospital stay, return of bowel function, and quality of life will be assessed and compared between the two groups. The study seeks to provide evidence for optimizing surgical techniques in low rectal cancer treatment and improving patient prognosis.

Key facts

Study ID
NCT07346534
Run by
Shanghai 10th People's Hospital
People needed
300
Starts
2022-06-01
Expected to finish
2026-12-30
Last updated by the study team
2026-01-16

Who can join

Age: 18 and older, up to 85. Sex: any. Healthy volunteers: not accepted.

You may qualify if…

You may not qualify if…

Where it is running

Full record on ClinicalTrials.gov

Trial information comes from ClinicalTrials.gov and is refreshed daily. TrialsForMe does not provide medical care and does not run the studies it lists.