• <tr id="yyy80"></tr>
  • <sup id="yyy80"></sup>
  • <tfoot id="yyy80"><noscript id="yyy80"></noscript></tfoot>
  • 99热精品在线国产_美女午夜性视频免费_国产精品国产高清国产av_av欧美777_自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇_亚洲熟女精品中文字幕_www日本黄色视频网_国产精品野战在线观看 ?

    Anastomotic leakage in rectal cancer surgery: Retrospective analysis of risk factors

    2023-01-04 07:59:28GiuseppeBrisindaMariaMichelaChiarelloGildaPepeMariaCariatiValeriaFicoPaoloMircoValentinaBianchi
    World Journal of Clinical Cases 2022年36期

    Giuseppe Brisinda, Maria Michela Chiarello, Gilda Pepe, Maria Cariati, Valeria Fico, Paolo Mirco, Valentina Bianchi

    Giuseppe Brisinda, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A Gemelli IRCCS, Rome 00168, Italy

    Giuseppe Brisinda, Department of Surgery, Università Cattolica S Cuore, Rome 00168, Italy

    Maria Michela Chiarello, Department of Surgery, Azienda Sanitaria Provinciale di Cosenza,Cosenza 87100, Italy

    Gilda Pepe, Valeria Fico, Paolo Mirco, Valentina Bianchi, Emergency Surgery and Trauma Center,Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A Gemelli IRCCS, Rome 00168, Italy

    Maria Cariati, Department of Surgery, Azienda Sanitaria Provinciale di Crotone, Crotone 88900,Italy

    Abstract BACKGROUND Anastomotic leakage (AL) after restorative surgery for rectal cancer (RC) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality.AIM To ascertain the risk factors by examining cases of AL in rectal surgery in this retrospective cohort study.METHODS To identify risk factors for AL, a review of 583 patients who underwent rectal resection with a double-stapling colorectal anastomosis between January 2007 and January 2022 was performed. Clinical, demographic and operative features, intraoperative outcomes and oncological characteristics were evaluated.RESULTS The incidence of AL was 10.4%, with a mean time interval of 6.2 ± 2.1 d. Overall mortality was 0.8%. Mortality was higher in patients with AL (4.9%) than in patients without leak (0.4%, P = 0.009). Poor bowel preparation, blood transfusion, median age, prognostic nutritional index < 40 points, tumor diameter and intraoperative blood loss were identified as risk factors for AL. Location of anastomosis, number of stapler cartridges used to divide the rectum, diameter of circular stapler, level of vascular section, T and N status and stage of disease were also correlated to AL in our patients. The diverting ileostomy did not reduce the leak rate, while the use of the transanastomic tube significantly did.CONCLUSION Clinical, surgical and pathological factors are associated with an increased risk of AL. It adversely affects the morbidity and mortality of RC patients.

    Key Words: Anastomosis; Leak; Anterior resection; Morbidity; Mortality; Rectal surgery

    INTRODUCTION

    Complications after rectal cancer (RC) surgery are still inevitable[1-3]. Anastomotic leakage (AL) is one of the most severe complications for RC surgery owing to its negative impact on both short- and longterm outcomes[1,4,5]. The incidence reported in the literature has not significantly changed in recent decades despite constant improvements in the preoperative assessment of the patient as well as in the surgical technique. The incidence of AL varies widely depending on the anastomosis type and the distance from the anal verge. AL rate after anterior resection varies from 0% to 36.3% and is associated with a 2%-10% mortality rate and with a 10%-100% risk of permanent stoma[2,6,7].

    AL is typically diagnosed 5-8 d post RC surgery. It can be classified as “early” and “l(fā)ate” AL according to whether it and AL-related complications were diagnosed within or after 30 d from surgery[8]. An early-onset AL is usually associated with severe peritonitis, emergency relaparotomy and increased mortality rate. By contrast, an AL that occurs late is associated with a long-lasting pelvic abscess[9]. An early dehiscence is frequently related to technical failure of the anastomosis due to surgical disruption of the blood supply or tension at the anastomotic site[10]. Late AL is related to patient conditions, such as local sepsis, poor nutrition, immunosuppression, morbid obesity and radiation exposure[11].

    Clinical, surgical and pathological factors are associated with an increased risk of AL. Cancer patients with poor physical health, including several comorbidities, may not be able to cope with the physiological insult when AL occurs. Different studies have documented that sex, location of the anastomotic site, preoperative albumin level and several other factors are closely related to the occurrence of AL[1,3].

    Furthermore, we have observed an increased rate of AL after end-to-end anastomosis (29.2%) compared to the end-to-side anastomosis technique (5%,P< 0.005)[6]. In consideration of these results, we did not use the end-to-end technique, preferring to perform the double-stapling technique for rectal anastomosis, as indicated by Knightet al[12] and known as the Knight-Griffen procedure. This procedure has good results, even if its effectiveness is still debated[13-16], particularly regarding the safety of the double suture technique. It has been documented that the number of linear stapler firings during rectal division, the intersecting lateral suture lines (dog-ears) and the intersections of the stapling lines could be associated with AL[13,17].

    In this study, we retrospectively reviewed our RC surgery cases and investigated the frequency of AL, surgical procedures and clinical and pathological features to identify the risk factors for AL.

    MATERIALS AND METHODS

    A retrospective analysis of clinical data, surgical features and pathological characteristics was conducted on patients with RC treated at the General Surgery Operative Unit, Policlinico Universitario “A Gemelli” from January 2007 to December 2015, at the General Surgery Operative Unit, Azienda Sanitaria Provinciale Crotone from January 2016 to May 2020 and at the Department of Surgery, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A Gemelli IRCCS from June 2020 to January 2022. Patient demographics, perioperative variables, tumor characteristics and postoperative mortality and morbidity were extracted from medical records after formal approval by the institutional medical ethics committee was obtained. All patients provided written consent before the surgical procedures. The study was conducted according to the STROCSS criteria[18].

    Inclusion criteria and staging procedures

    Patients with a histological diagnosis of RC were included in the study. All patients underwent a complete clinical evaluation, including laboratory tests, with complete blood cell count and serum chemistry. In all the patients, a preoperative staging of the neoplasm was performed, which encompassed lower digestive endoscopy with biopsy, a carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) serum test, chest X-ray and abdominopelvic computed tomography (CT) scan. High-resolution magnetic resonance imaging or transrectal ultrasound were subsequently performed to assess tumor height. RC was defined as tumors with distal extension 15 cm from the anal margin[19,20]. Cancers were categorized as low (up to 5 cm), middle (from > 5 to 10 cm) or high (from > 10 up to 15 cm). Tumors were staged according to the latest version of the pathologic classification (pTNM) of the American Joint Committee on Cancer[21]. All patients were treated with elective procedures for uncomplicated disease at clinical presentation.

    Exclusion criteria

    Patients with colonic cancer and tumors histologically different from adenocarcinoma were excluded from the analysis. Patients with positive surgical resection margins, patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis and/or distant metastatic disease, patients with ≥ 1 missing data point and patients who underwent a nonrestorative surgery, such as Hartmann’s procedures or Miles’ operation, were not included in the study.

    Diagnosis of AL

    An AL was defined as a defect of the intestinal wall integrity at the colorectal anastomosis site leading to a communication between the intra- and extraluminal compartments as reported by the International Study Group of Rectal Cancer (ISREC)[22]. The perianastomotic presence of a pelvic abscess was also considered dehiscence. Abdominal pain, fever, tachycardia, the appearance of peritonitis or purulent discharge from pelvic drainage or when anastomotic fluid collections or fistulae were detected by CT with rectal water-soluble contrast agent were all elements used to make the diagnosis[23]. To assess severity of AL, ISREC grading was used[22]. AL is graded according to the therapeutic management it requires (type A: no management; type B: non-operative management; type C: operative management).

    Study variables

    Patient-, disease- and treatment-related variables were analyzed. The clinical variables evaluated were age, sex, serum albumin and CEA levels, hemoglobin values, the presence of concomitant pathologies, weight loss, smoking and alcohol intake and the prognostic nutritional index (PNI). Other variables considered were the quality of mechanical bowel preparation, need for blood transfusions and execution of neoadjuvant treatments. The surgical parameters evaluated were type of surgical approach, site of the colorectal anastomosis, complete or partial excision of the mesorectum, site of vascular section, number of stapler cartridges used to dissect the rectum, diameter of the circular stapler used and the presence of the ileostomy or placement of a transanastomotic decompression tube (TDT). The pathological variables taken into consideration were the T status, the N status and the stage of the disease. Mean age, mean operative time, intraoperative blood loss, mean tumor size, distance of the tumor from the anal verge and mean length of postoperative hospital stay were also evaluated.

    Weight loss was defined as the loss of 10% or more of habitual body weight over the prior 6 mo. Prespecified subgroup analyses were defined according to age ( 65 years or > 65 years), serum albumin (< 3.5 g/dL or ≥ 3.5 g/dL), CEA levels (< 5 ng/mL or ≥ 5 ng/mL) and hemoglobin values (< 10 g/dL or ≥ 10 g/dL), in agreement with other findings in the literature. The cutoff used in this study was age > 65 years. It was considered a significant risk factor for postoperative complications in RC surgery, in accordance with a definition of age limits for elderly patients. The PNI was calculated using serum albumin and the peripheral lymphocyte count, using the following formula: PNI = serum albumin level (g/dL) + 5 × total lymphocyte count. The cutoff value of PNI was 40, based on an original investigation by Onoderaet al[24]. Reoperation was defined as reintervention within 30 d after the primary operation.

    Preoperative treatments

    Patients underwent neoadjuvant treatment or upfront surgery based on the clinical stage of the cancer. The therapeutic decision was made after a multidisciplinary evaluation. Neoadjuvant treatment was long course in all patients with administration of a dose of 45-50 Gy associated with 5-fluorouracil or capecitabine. The ERAS protocol was not used in any patient.

    Surgical procedure

    All patients were prepared with the same protocol. This involved intestinal preparation (polyethylene glycol electrolytic solution performed 12 h before surgery), thrombotic prophylaxis (enoxaparin 4000 IU) and antibiotic prophylaxis (metronidazole 500 mg and ciprofloxacin 400 mg administered intravenously at the beginning of the surgery). After surgery, all patients received enoxaparin (4000 IU sc once daily for 30 d). In the postoperative period, antibiotic treatment was initiated in patients with fever and leucocytosis, first empirically and then modified based on microbiological findings.

    Surgery following neoadjuvant treatment was performed within 8-12 wk as all patients underwent long course radiotherapy and chemotherapy. The vascular section was performed at the level of the origin of the inferior mesenteric artery or the superior hemorrhoidal artery. The splenic flexure was taken down routinely to achieve maximal colonic mobilization. The type of procedure was defined by the anatomical site of anastomosis. In low anterior resection the anastomosis was about 5 to 8 cm above the anal verge. In “ultra-low” anterior resection the anastomosis was performed at the level of the anorectal junction, at about 3-5 cm from the anal verge.

    The hydropneumatic test was used to assess the integrity of the anastomosis. Doughnuts were inspected for integrity after removal of the stapler. Each surgeon decided at his own discretion to create a protective ileostomy, based on his own criteria of measuring the risk of AL in each specific patient, and to place a TDT after performing the colorectal anastomosis. Two perianastomotic extraperitoneal drains were placed. The drains were left in place until the stool passed. In all patients, the anastomosis was excluded from the abdominal cavity with the suture of the pelvic peritoneum. The type of approach adopted was classified in open surgery or laparoscopic surgery.

    Main outcomes

    Patients were classified into two groups: Patients with AL and patients without AL. This subdivision was made on the basis of their clinical course. The primary endpoint of the study was the detection of any independent risk factors for AL. Secondary endpoints include the overall rate of AL in the study population, the relationship with the factors considered and the distribution of AL according to ISREC clinical severity grading[22]. In addition, 30-d mortality and morbidity and reoperation in patients with and without AL was evaluated.

    Statistical analysis

    The results were expressed as mean ± SD or as percentage. All statistical elaborations were obtained by using Student’sttest and Fisher’s exact test. Data were processed using GraphPad Prism software (GraphPad, San Diego, CA, United States). AllPvalues were two tailed.Pvalues of less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

    RESULTS

    Data of 583 patients (301 males and 282 females, mean age 63.7 ± 19.4 years) were analyzed (Table 1). Among them, 58.5% of patients (341 cases) were ≥ 65 years of age and 50.9% (301 cases) had at least one concomitant disease. Weight loss was present in 98 patients (16.8%). We observed that 80% of patients had normal serum albumin levels. CEA levels were increased in 336 cases (57.6%) and values of hemoglobin < 10 g/dL were observed in 49.9% of patients. The PNI was < 40 points in 130 patients (22.3%).

    Table 1 Clinical, demographic and pathological characteristics in 583 rectal cancer patients

    Complete and adequate bowel preparation was achieved in 361 patients (61.9%); 44.9% of patients (262 cases) received blood transfusions in the perioperative period due to their anemic condition. Regarding the disease stage, 122, 185 and 276 patients were found to be in stage I, II and III, respectively. A neoadjuvant treatment was needed in 393 patients (67.4%).

    All patients studied underwent anterior rectal resection with a mean operative time of 130.1 ± 36.1 min and intraoperative blood loss of 210.0 ± 30.0 mL. In 76.7% of cases (447 patients) the surgical approach was open. The inferior mesenteric artery was tied up in 277 patients (47.5%). The excision of the mesorectum occurred in 311 patients and partial in the remaining 272 cases. The distal rectum was divided with a single 60 mm purple or black cartridge (EndoGIA, Medtronic, MN, United States) in 351 patients (60.2%) and with multiple cartridges in the remaining patients. Colorectal anastomosis was performed in the middle rectum in 49.4% of cases (288 patients) and in the lower rectum in the remaining cases (295 patients). The circular stapler was introduced through the anus. A 25 mm diameter circular stapler (Covidien, Premium Plus CEEA or EEA with DST series technology, Medtronic, MN, United States) was used in 128 cases (21.9%), and a 28 mm diameter circular stapler (Covidien, Premium Plus CEEA or EEA with DST series technology, Medtronic, MN, United States) was adopted in 455 patients (78.1%). A diverting ileostomy was performed in 297 patients, and a TDT tube was placed in 196 patients.

    CEA: Carcinoembryonic antigen; M: Male; F: Female.

    Regarding the T status, 73, 104, 306 and 100 patients were T1, T2, T3 and T4, respectively. Positive lymph nodes were found in 321 patients (55.1%). The mean postoperative hospital stay was 8.7 ± 3.7 d.

    The overall incidence of AL was 10.4% (61/583 patients), with a mean time interval of 6.2 ± 2.1 d (range 3-27 d). Clinical features at the time of the diagnosis were a median temperature of 38.4 °C (range 36.8-39.5 °C), a median heart rate of 105 bpm (range 70-140) and a median blood pressure of 110 mmHg (range 55-180 mmHg). A type C AL was identified in 35 patients (57.4%).

    Patients were divided into two groups based on the absence or presence of AL. Clinical and demographic characteristics of the included patients are shown in Table 2. Patients who developed AL were significantly older (68.2 ± 10.7 years) than patients without AL (59.7 ± 17.2 years,P= 0.0002). A higher incidence of AL was documented in patients with low serum albumin (15.2%vs7.9% in serum albumin ≥ 3.5 g/dL,P= 0.006) and low hemoglobin levels (11.8%vs7.0% in level ≥ 10 g/dL,P= 0.02). A higher incidence of AL was also reported in patients with a PNI score < 40 points (18.2%vs6.6% with ≥ 40 points,P= 0.0001). AL was more frequent in patients who experienced weight loss before the operation (17.3%vs9.1%,P= 0.01). No differences between the two groups were found for sex (P= 0.08), age < 65 years or ≥ 65 years (P= 0.09), presence of concomitant diseases (P= 0.1), smoking habits (P= 0.5) or use of alcohol (P= 0.1). A higher incidence of AL was observed in patients with poor bowel preparation (16.2%) compared to those with complete and appropriate bowel preparation (6.9%,P= 0.0007) and in patients receiving blood transfusions (14.8%) compared to those who did not require this therapy (6.8%,P= 0.002). As for neoadjuvant treatments, the adoption of a long course of radiochemotherapy did not lead to a statistically significant AL rate compared to patients treated who underwent upfront surgery (11.2%vs8.9%,P= 0.4).

    The treatment related variables are listed in Table 3. The surgical approach adopted showed no influence on the incidence of AL (10.2% in open surgeryvs11% in laparoscopic approach,P= 0.8). The mean duration of surgery was longer in patients who developed AL (186.0 ± 40.2 min) than in patients without AL (115.0 ± 47.8 min,P= 0.0001). A similar difference was found for intraoperative blood loss (365.0 ± 50.0 mL in patients with ALvs175.5 ± 45.0 mL in patients without AL,P= 0.0001). Significant differences between the two groups were found to be related to the site of the anastomosis (6.9% middle rectumvs13.9% low rectum,P= 0.006), stapled rectal resection firing more than one cartridge (5.4% one stapler cartridgevs18.1% > 1 cartridges,P= 0.0001), the diameter of the circular stapler used (5.4% 25 mmvs11.8% 28 mm,P= 0.03), the vascular ligation site (14% inferior mesenteric arteryvs7.1% superior hemorrhoidal artery,P= 0.009) and type of mesorectal excision (13.1% in total excisionvs7.3% in partial excision,P= 0.02). The presence of a diverting ileostomy had no influence on the AL rate (10.1% with ileostomyvs10.8% without ileostomy,P= 0.7), while the use of a TDT resulted in a lower incidence of AL rate (6.1%) compared to patients in whom this device was not used (12.6%,P= 0.01).

    Regarding pathological data, all the considered variables showed significant differences between the two groups (Table 4). The mean RC size was larger in patients with AL (47.9 ± 16.1 mm) than in patients without AL (39.0 ± 21.1 mm,P= 0.001). The distance of the tumor from the anal margin was less in patients with AL (71.0 ± 32.0 mm) than in patients without AL (89.0 ± 21.0 mm,P= 0.0001). A higher incidence of AL was documented in patients with more advanced RC (11.0%) than in those with early cancer (5.8%,P= 0.02). Lymph node involvement and stage of disease were both significantly related to the risk of AL (Table 4).

    The mean postoperative hospital stay was 7.0 ± 2.1 d in patients without AL and 29.2 ± 13.4 d in those with AL (P= 0.0001).

    Overall, the mortality rate was 0.8% (5/583 patients). Mortality was statistically higher in patients with AL (4.9%, 3/61 cases) than in patients without AL (0.4%, 2/522 cases,P= 0.009). Postoperative mortality in patients without AL was determined by massive pulmonary embolism on the 6thpostoperative day and by acute myocardial infarction in severe enteric bleeding on the 3rdpostoperative day. Three patients with AL died from sepsis and multiple organ failure.

    Observed complications are listed in Table 5. In the AL group, 35 patients (type C AL) were reoperated; all patients underwent stoma formation. Of these 35 patients, 15 had the anastomosis taken down and repackaged. Ten patients with AL were subjected to conservative treatments. Four patients were treated with a course of intravenous antibiotics only, and 6 patients underwent radiological drainage of postoperative collections. All patients were without ileostomy and had type B AL. In 16 patients (7 with ileostomy performed at the time of anterior resection surgery) an endoluminal vacuum therapy (EndoSponge, B.Braun Surgical S.A., Barcelona, Spain) was used with closure of the AL (27.8 ± 12.7 d), with an average replacement of sponges of 11.2 ± 5.7. Patients with AL showed a higher incidence of pelvic sepsis (P= 0.0001), wound dehiscence (P= 0.003) and wound infection (P= 0.0008). No differences were shown regarding the incidence of urinary infection or pneumonia.

    Table 2 Clinical and demographic characteristics, n (%)

    Table 3 Treatment related variables, n (%)

    Table 4 Staging and pathological data, n (%)

    Table 5 Mortality and morbidity in-hospital or 30 d, n (%)

    DISCUSSION

    One of the most serious postoperative complications after RC surgery is AL. This is also the leading cause of mortality[25]. AL affects the outcome of surgery, worsening the short- and long-term outcomes and increasing the times and costs of hospitalization[4,5,26,27]. The mortality rate after AL ranges from 25% to 66% after all colorectal surgery procedures. Morbidity is also high, and the risk of receiving a definitive ostomy can exceed 25%[28]. The present study showed an AL incidence of 10.4%, consistent with the current published data. Overall mortality was 0.8%. It was higher in patients with AL (4.9%) than in patients without leak (0.4%,P= 0.009). As already reported, we have observed a significant increase in the mean postoperative hospital stay (7.0 ± 2.1 dvs29.2 ± 13.4 d in patients with AL,P= 0.0001) and the incidence of severe complications.

    CEA: Carcinoembryonic antigen; F: Female; M: Male.

    Risk assessment of AL is crucial. An early decision-making process must consider several factors. We have observed results that do not completely match with the current literature. A Cochrane review confirmed that male sex is an independent risk factor[28]. Male sex is significantly related to increased AL risk after laparoscopic surgery for RC[10], probably due to the narrower male pelvis as well as androgens that may affect the bowel microcirculation acting on intestinal endothelial function. In the present study, no differences in sex, age, presence of concomitant diseases, smoking habits or use of alcohol were found between the two groups of patients.

    Our patients who developed AL were significantly older. Furthermore, a higher incidence of AL was documented in patients with low serum albumin (P= 0.006), low hemoglobin levels (P= 0.02) and a PNI score of less than 40 points (P= 0.0001). Our findings were consistent with the current published data. Advanced age was associated with mortality after AL[29] as well as low perioperative albumin[30]. Weight loss, malnutrition, fluid and electrolyte disorders were also associated with a higher risk of AL as documented by a multivariate analysis[31]. Hemoglobin is related to perfusion and oxygenation of the anastomotic margins, an essential factor for anastomotic healing. Currently, a hemoglobin level less than 11 g/dL increased the risk for AL[32]. We observed a higher incidence of AL in patients with PNI < 40 points. Different cutoff points have been used in the literature. Several published studies found a relationship between PNI, cancer prognosis and complication rate after surgery for colorectal cancer[33]. Tokunagaet al[34] found that a low index was associated to higher postoperative morbidity. We believe that this index represents an additional useful tool when estimating the state in which our patients go to surgery, which can help us evaluate each case and grade their risk of developing complications. For high-risk patients (PNI < 40), the possibility of delaying a procedure could be considered, whenever it is possible, with the intention of improving their nutritional status. In addition, we might regard a more conservative approach during the postoperative period and the possibility of a diverting stoma to protect a colorectal anastomosis.

    Moreover, we noticed a higher incidence of AL in patients undergoing blood transfusions compared to those who did not require this therapy and in patients with poor bowel preparation compared to those with complete and appropriate bowel preparation. Several randomized trials have found that omitting mechanical bowel preparation does not increase the risk of AL[35,36]. A systematic review including over 5000 patients found no evidence that patients benefit from bowel preparation (either orally or by enema)[37]. Furthermore, data from registry analysis showed a beneficial effect of local decontamination with polymyxin, tobramycin, vancomycin and amphotericin B in the prevention of AL in RC surgery[38,39,40].

    As for neoadjuvant treatments, the adoption of a long course of radiochemotherapy did not lead to a statistically significant AL rate compared to patients who underwent upfront surgery. Neoadjuvant treatment was not found to be associated with AL in this study. While some authors showed a relationship between preoperative radiochemotherapy and AL occurrence[41-43], several others could not confirm this connection[10]. A recent meta-analysis of literature from 1980 to 2015 demonstrated no significant correlation between increased incidence of AL and neoadjuvant therapy[44].

    We observed that the risk of AL rises in advanced stage RC and in metastatic nodes. Our results are consistent with previous studies. This may be explained by the more technical complexity of such cases[2]. An additional identified risk factor for AL is tumor distance from the anal verge. Data of the present study (71.0 ± 32.0 mm in AL patientsvs89.0 ± 21 mm in patients without AL,P= 0.0001) is consistent with literature evidence. RC diameter greater than 3 cm and advanced local disease at the time of surgical treatment were identified by Zhuet al[45] as an independent risk factor. Our data are congruous with these findings.

    To date, even though the minimally invasive approach for RC surgery is spreading worldwide, the non-inferiority of laparoscopy compared with open surgery with respect to postoperative complications is still debated[46,47]. We did not observe any difference between the two surgical approaches. Many randomized controlled trials have confirmed equivalent oncological outcome and long-term survival, with no differences for postoperative mortality and complications[46,48-51]. Laparoscopy has distinct differences from open surgery, such as the need for multiple stapler firings when transecting the rectum, which is associated with an increased AL rate, although this is likely to be reduced with advances in stapler technology. The duration of the procedure and the number of stapling cartridges influence AL appearance. These intraoperative risk factors often determine a challenging surgery for locally advanced RC. Operative time longer than 3 h has also been described in the literature as being associated with a higher incidence of AL[52,53]. Several studies showed that multiple applications of linear stapler cartridges increased the leak risk due to an unduly long stapling line with an oblique angle in the lower locations[17], making an ileostomy mandatory in these cases[14,17] after both open and laparoscopic surgery for RC. Our results are consistent with the conclusions of these studies.

    Moreover, a significant association between vascular ligature level and AL was observed. Our data confirm these results. An increase in the AL rate in cases of inferior mesenteric artery ligation compared to superior hemorrhoidal artery ligation has been noted. High vascular ligation probably results in reduced colonic perfusion. Trenchevaet al[54] reported that ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery below the left colonic artery significantly decreased the incidence of AL. Tanakaet al[55] did not observe a significant association between the incidence of AL and the level of ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery. These results were confirmed in the multivariate analysis by Cirocchiet al[56], evaluating 8666 patients. In fact, they did not observe statistically significant differences in the prevalence of AL between high and low ligation groups. A promising technology is intraoperative fluorescence angiography with indocyanine green[57]. The procedure provides information on tissue perfusion[58,59]. Evidence for the impact of intraoperative fluorescence angiography in preventing AL after colorectal anastomosis is growing.

    Regarding the TDT, several studies showed no difference in AL rate between the patients with and without one[60,61]. Our findings are in accordance with other literature observations that have documented a reduction in the frequency of AL in patients with TDT[62-65]. Prophylactic TDT was thought to lower the risk of AL whilst presenting less risks of complication than a diverting stoma. A systematic review and meta-analysis pooling 1772 patients undergoing anterior resection described TDT to lower the risk of AL (relative risk 0.44)[66]. However, patients receiving diverting stoma were excluded, leading to a potential underestimation of the AL rate. Another systematic review and metaanalysis followed, including patients with diverting stoma, and obtained the same conclusion (a reduction of the risk of AL in patients with TDT)[67]. Therefore, prophylactic TDT could constitute an efficient method to prevent AL in high-risk patients without exposing them to the complications of diverting stoma. A large scale randomized controlled trial comparing the two techniques still needs to be conducted.

    Based on the distal section of the rectum, we divided anastomoses in two groups: anastomosis of the middle rectum and anastomosis of the low rectum. We realized 268 anastomoses for the first group and 254 for the second group. Anastomotic location was a factor related to AL development; also, we noted a significantly higher leak rate in patients who underwent a total mesorectal excision than those who underwent partial excision. We observed a reduced incidence of AL in patients who used a 25 mm circular stapler compared to those in which a 28 mm stapler was used, as reported in the literature[68].

    A diverting loop ileostomy ideally protects a low colorectal anastomosis. The actual role of a protective stoma after rectal resection is still strongly debated[69]. Some authors report a reduction in the rate of dehiscence and re-interventions in patients with a protective ileostomy; others do not consider ostomy as a crucial factor in reducing the rate of AL. We believe that ostomy is useful to reduce clinical symptoms of AL by increasing the percentage of subclinical dehiscence but not changing the total percentage overall.

    We acknowledge the limitations of the present study. There may be uncontrollable and unrecognized biases. These include its retrospective nature and patient sample size over a 15-year period. Furthermore, the present study lacked analysis on the role of pelvic drains in the appearance of AL after anterior resection for RC because we always use them just as we always mobilize the left colon flexure. Similarly, there is no evaluation of the emergency/urgent cases that were excluded from the study. Likewise, different ways of performing the colorectal anastomosis were not studied, as all patients underwent a double stapling technique. The evaluation of prognostic parameters such as the dosage of C-reactive protein and procalcitonin was not performed. Likewise, angiography with indocyanine green was not used, and we did not consider parameters related to the volume and expertise of the hospital. Moreover, surgeon factor was not analyzed.

    CONCLUSION

    AL after RC surgery is a fearsome complication. Dehiscence is responsible for the increase in mortality and morbidity. Many factors are related to the onset of AL in the postoperative period. The evaluation of the PNI is very promising. A very low PNI should lead to a diverting ileostomy, which mitigates the systemic effects of sepsis in the case of AL. The TDT is useful in preventing the formation of AL. This is a simple method that could avoid performing diverting ileostomies. The use of small diameter circular staplers should be considered in prospective randomized studies on a larger number of patients.

    ARTICLE HIGHLIGHTS

    Research background

    Anastomotic leakage (AL) is one of the most severe complications for rectal cancer (RC) surgery owing to its negative impact on both short- and long-term outcomes. The incidence reported in the literature has not significantly changed in recent decades despite constant improvements in the preoperative assessment of the patient as well as in the surgical technique.

    Research motivation

    In a previous study, we observed an increased rate of AL after end-to-end anastomosis compared to the end-to-side anastomosis technique. In consideration of these results, we did not use the end-to-end technique, preferring to perform the double stapling technique for rectal anastomosis.

    Research objectives

    In this study, we retrospectively reviewed our RC surgery cases, investigated frequency of AL, surgical procedures and clinical and pathological features to identify the risk factors for this complication.

    Research methods

    Patient-, disease- and treatment-related variables were analyzed. Patients were classified into two groups: patients with AL and patients without AL. The primary endpoint of the study was the detection of any independent risk factors for leakage. Secondary endpoints included the overall rate of leakage in the study population, the distribution of AL according to clinical severity grading and 30-d mortality and morbidity.

    Research results

    Data of 583 patients were analyzed. Mortality rate was 0.8%. It was higher in patients with AL. The incidence of AL was 10.4%. Patients who developed leakage were significantly older than patients without AL. A higher incidence of AL has been documented in patients with low serum albumin and low hemoglobin levels and in patients with a prognostic nutritional index score < 40 points. A higher incidence of leakage was observed in patients with poor bowel preparation compared to those with complete and appropriate bowel preparation and in patients receiving blood transfusions compared to those who did not require this therapy. Significant differences between the two groups were found to be related to the site of the anastomosis, stapled rectal resection firing more than one cartridge, the diameter of the circular stapler used, the vascular ligation site and type of mesorectal excision. The use of a transanastomotic tube resulted in a lower incidence of rate of AL compared to patients in whom this device was not used.

    Research conclusions

    AL after RC surgery is a fearsome complication with considerable mortality and morbidity. Many factors are related to the onset of leakage in the postoperative period. The evaluation of the prognostic nutritional index is very promising.

    Research perspectives

    The use of the transanastomotic tube prevents the formation of AL. This is a simple method that could avoid performing diverting ileostomies. The use of small diameter circular staplers should be considered in prospective randomized studies on a larger number of patients.

    FOOTNOTES

    Author contributions:Brisinda G contributed to the writing-original draft; Brisinda G, Chiarello MM and Bianchi V contributed to the conceptualization, methodology and writing-reviewing and editing; Brisinda G, Pepe G, Cariati M, Fico V and Mirco P contributed to the data curation; Brisinda G and Fico V contributed to the formal analysis; Fico V and Mirco P contributed to the investigation; All the authors read and approved the final manuscript.

    Institutional review board statement:The study involves the analysis of clinical data. For this reason, the approval of the Institutional Board of the Ethics Committee was not required. The study did not lead to changes in the diagnosis and treatment of the disease in the patients under analysis.

    Informed consent statement:All patients were informed about the treatment modalities at the time they were observed. Regarding the study, this is a retrospective analysis of anonymous clinical data.

    Conflict-of-interest statement:The authors have no financial or personal relationships that may inappropriately influence this work. No funding body had any involvement in the preparation or content of this manuscript or in decision to submit for publication.

    Data sharing statement:The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article.

    Open-Access:This article is an open-access article that was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial (CC BYNC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is noncommercial. See: https://creativecommons.org/Licenses/by-nc/4.0/

    Country/Territory of origin:Italy

    ORCID number:Giuseppe Brisinda 0000-0001-8820-9471; Maria Michela Chiarello 0000-0003-3455-0062; Gilda Pepe 0000-0001-9852-6243; Maria Cariati 0000-0002-3278-2567; Valeria Fico 0000-0003-1619-4164; Paolo Mirco 0000-0001-8333-0344;Valentina Bianchi 0000-0002-8817-3760.

    S-Editor:Zhang H

    L-Editor:Filipodia

    P-Editor:Zhang H

    色吧在线观看| 王馨瑶露胸无遮挡在线观看| 少妇人妻精品综合一区二区| av视频免费观看在线观看| 熟女电影av网| 日日撸夜夜添| 午夜老司机福利剧场| 少妇熟女欧美另类| 国产不卡av网站在线观看| 国产免费福利视频在线观看| 久久久久视频综合| 一本大道久久a久久精品| 蜜桃久久精品国产亚洲av| 高清视频免费观看一区二区| 三级国产精品欧美在线观看| 免费久久久久久久精品成人欧美视频 | 汤姆久久久久久久影院中文字幕| 成人影院久久| 亚洲成人一二三区av| 国产精品人妻久久久久久| 国产成人精品无人区| 成人国语在线视频| 亚洲欧美清纯卡通| 国产免费又黄又爽又色| 我的老师免费观看完整版| 国产精品国产三级国产av玫瑰| 国产成人a∨麻豆精品| 如何舔出高潮| 亚洲av二区三区四区| 欧美人与性动交α欧美精品济南到 | 热99久久久久精品小说推荐| 最新的欧美精品一区二区| 午夜久久久在线观看| 亚洲av免费高清在线观看| av在线app专区| 人人妻人人澡人人爽人人夜夜| 国产一区二区在线观看日韩| 男男h啪啪无遮挡| 少妇熟女欧美另类| 又黄又爽又刺激的免费视频.| 天天操日日干夜夜撸| 欧美精品一区二区免费开放| 精品久久国产蜜桃| 最后的刺客免费高清国语| 少妇熟女欧美另类| 国产在线一区二区三区精| 久久久久久久亚洲中文字幕| 日韩在线高清观看一区二区三区| 大香蕉久久网| 亚洲欧美精品自产自拍| 亚洲激情五月婷婷啪啪| 日韩精品有码人妻一区| 九色成人免费人妻av| 日本av手机在线免费观看| 九九在线视频观看精品| 成人毛片a级毛片在线播放| 成人手机av| 久久久久久久久大av| 国产男女内射视频| 91精品国产国语对白视频| 久热久热在线精品观看| 免费看光身美女| 亚洲精品日韩av片在线观看| 大片免费播放器 马上看| 蜜桃久久精品国产亚洲av| 日韩熟女老妇一区二区性免费视频| 哪个播放器可以免费观看大片| 综合色丁香网| 老熟女久久久| 国产高清不卡午夜福利| 国产国拍精品亚洲av在线观看| 一本一本综合久久| 少妇被粗大的猛进出69影院 | 国产成人精品久久久久久| 日韩三级伦理在线观看| 亚洲欧美中文字幕日韩二区| 熟女av电影| 一区二区三区精品91| 久久人人爽av亚洲精品天堂| 丝瓜视频免费看黄片| 亚洲成色77777| 少妇被粗大猛烈的视频| 丝袜美足系列| 精品视频人人做人人爽| 欧美精品一区二区免费开放| 日韩欧美精品免费久久| 久久这里有精品视频免费| 天天躁夜夜躁狠狠久久av| av一本久久久久| a级毛色黄片| 久久精品国产亚洲av涩爱| 男人操女人黄网站| 春色校园在线视频观看| 日韩欧美一区视频在线观看| 亚洲激情五月婷婷啪啪| 久久久国产一区二区| 黄色怎么调成土黄色| 最新中文字幕久久久久| 免费播放大片免费观看视频在线观看| 国产高清有码在线观看视频| 国产精品99久久99久久久不卡 | 国产色婷婷99| 亚洲国产日韩一区二区| 久久久亚洲精品成人影院| 日日撸夜夜添| 亚洲精品av麻豆狂野| 免费黄色在线免费观看| 免费黄频网站在线观看国产| 亚洲,欧美,日韩| 夜夜看夜夜爽夜夜摸| 亚洲天堂av无毛| 欧美精品国产亚洲| 免费观看无遮挡的男女| 最近2019中文字幕mv第一页| 丝瓜视频免费看黄片| 国产伦理片在线播放av一区| 大陆偷拍与自拍| 久久99蜜桃精品久久| 国产亚洲欧美精品永久| 亚洲色图综合在线观看| 狂野欧美激情性bbbbbb| 久久久国产欧美日韩av| 国产免费福利视频在线观看| 校园人妻丝袜中文字幕| 欧美一级a爱片免费观看看| av网站免费在线观看视频| 国产高清国产精品国产三级| 高清在线视频一区二区三区| 边亲边吃奶的免费视频| 91精品国产国语对白视频| 国产亚洲av片在线观看秒播厂| 人妻夜夜爽99麻豆av| 久久ye,这里只有精品| 国产精品久久久久久久久免| 亚洲av日韩在线播放| 有码 亚洲区| 麻豆精品久久久久久蜜桃| 亚洲国产日韩一区二区| 自拍欧美九色日韩亚洲蝌蚪91| 99热全是精品| 99视频精品全部免费 在线| 国产一区亚洲一区在线观看| 嘟嘟电影网在线观看| 成人亚洲欧美一区二区av| 一边亲一边摸免费视频| 美女视频免费永久观看网站| 大话2 男鬼变身卡| 久久97久久精品| 丁香六月天网| 一区在线观看完整版| av卡一久久| 久久久久久久亚洲中文字幕| 五月伊人婷婷丁香| 国产片特级美女逼逼视频| 午夜免费男女啪啪视频观看| 亚洲av男天堂| 啦啦啦啦在线视频资源| 欧美日韩一区二区视频在线观看视频在线| 99九九线精品视频在线观看视频| 在线观看人妻少妇| 黄片无遮挡物在线观看| 我要看黄色一级片免费的| 少妇的逼水好多| 亚洲熟女精品中文字幕| 中文字幕精品免费在线观看视频 | 国产永久视频网站| 最近中文字幕高清免费大全6| 亚洲av在线观看美女高潮| 寂寞人妻少妇视频99o| 日韩强制内射视频| 精品亚洲成a人片在线观看| 久久热精品热| 嫩草影院入口| 亚洲精华国产精华液的使用体验| 最新中文字幕久久久久| 国产黄色视频一区二区在线观看| 免费看光身美女| 97超视频在线观看视频| 日韩一区二区三区影片| 日本免费在线观看一区| 欧美少妇被猛烈插入视频| 亚洲国产欧美日韩在线播放| 狠狠婷婷综合久久久久久88av| 男女高潮啪啪啪动态图| 亚洲少妇的诱惑av| 国产精品 国内视频| 久久精品久久精品一区二区三区| 欧美精品人与动牲交sv欧美| 黑人欧美特级aaaaaa片| 日韩电影二区| 国产极品粉嫩免费观看在线 | 欧美日韩综合久久久久久| 黑人猛操日本美女一级片| 久久久精品区二区三区| 亚洲av日韩在线播放| 校园人妻丝袜中文字幕| 午夜视频国产福利| 国产一区二区在线观看av| 欧美xxxx性猛交bbbb| 女人久久www免费人成看片| xxx大片免费视频| 另类精品久久| 纵有疾风起免费观看全集完整版| 大片免费播放器 马上看| 午夜视频国产福利| 成人国语在线视频| 99热这里只有精品一区| 日本与韩国留学比较| 一级毛片我不卡| 久久久欧美国产精品| 久久精品久久久久久噜噜老黄| 国产精品久久久久久精品电影小说| 国产又色又爽无遮挡免| 91国产中文字幕| 大话2 男鬼变身卡| 欧美精品人与动牲交sv欧美| 成人影院久久| 97精品久久久久久久久久精品| 麻豆成人av视频| 亚洲精品日韩av片在线观看| 一本大道久久a久久精品| 久久这里有精品视频免费| 男女边摸边吃奶| 黄片播放在线免费| 18禁观看日本| 亚洲第一区二区三区不卡| 日韩av免费高清视频| 熟女人妻精品中文字幕| 夜夜爽夜夜爽视频| 男女免费视频国产| 久久久国产一区二区| 欧美精品亚洲一区二区| 久久毛片免费看一区二区三区| 亚洲激情五月婷婷啪啪| 在线观看国产h片| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区国产| 在线播放无遮挡| 成人手机av| 国精品久久久久久国模美| av线在线观看网站| 色网站视频免费| av免费在线看不卡| 大香蕉97超碰在线| 国产精品麻豆人妻色哟哟久久| 人妻夜夜爽99麻豆av| 激情五月婷婷亚洲| 天堂俺去俺来也www色官网| 亚洲精品美女久久av网站| 亚洲国产精品专区欧美| 午夜福利影视在线免费观看| 久久久精品免费免费高清| 看非洲黑人一级黄片| 热re99久久国产66热| 又黄又爽又刺激的免费视频.| 免费观看a级毛片全部| 男人爽女人下面视频在线观看| 99国产精品免费福利视频| 啦啦啦在线观看免费高清www| 晚上一个人看的免费电影| 日韩一本色道免费dvd| 精品久久久精品久久久| 国产精品一区二区在线观看99| 青春草亚洲视频在线观看| 国产色婷婷99| 黑人高潮一二区| 三上悠亚av全集在线观看| 18在线观看网站| 免费日韩欧美在线观看| 欧美最新免费一区二区三区| 一二三四中文在线观看免费高清| 国产成人freesex在线| 男女国产视频网站| 精品视频人人做人人爽| 国产欧美另类精品又又久久亚洲欧美| 国产日韩欧美亚洲二区| 精品久久久久久电影网| 精品99又大又爽又粗少妇毛片| 2022亚洲国产成人精品| 国产成人aa在线观看| 全区人妻精品视频| 99九九在线精品视频| 欧美激情国产日韩精品一区| 国产日韩一区二区三区精品不卡 | 寂寞人妻少妇视频99o| 99久久综合免费| 亚洲在久久综合| 激情五月婷婷亚洲| 久久久精品免费免费高清| 中国三级夫妇交换| av线在线观看网站| 一区二区av电影网| 亚洲成人一二三区av| 91午夜精品亚洲一区二区三区| 精品久久久精品久久久| 亚洲成人av在线免费| 久久久久久久精品精品| 国产午夜精品一二区理论片| 精品久久久久久久久av| 久久狼人影院| 精品一区二区免费观看| 亚洲av在线观看美女高潮| 一区在线观看完整版| 久久精品国产亚洲网站| 汤姆久久久久久久影院中文字幕| 国产片特级美女逼逼视频| 99视频精品全部免费 在线| 啦啦啦视频在线资源免费观看| 色5月婷婷丁香| 国产亚洲欧美精品永久| 91成人精品电影| 成人国产麻豆网| 丝袜在线中文字幕| 免费观看a级毛片全部| 国产视频内射| 久久免费观看电影| 狂野欧美激情性bbbbbb| 亚洲精品亚洲一区二区| 日韩 亚洲 欧美在线| 国产成人精品久久久久久| 能在线免费看毛片的网站| 看免费成人av毛片| 久久精品久久精品一区二区三区| 高清视频免费观看一区二区| 国产成人av激情在线播放 | 午夜激情久久久久久久| 大又大粗又爽又黄少妇毛片口| 美女国产视频在线观看| 精品亚洲成国产av| 一级毛片 在线播放| 99久久人妻综合| 美女主播在线视频| 香蕉精品网在线| 大香蕉久久成人网| 另类精品久久| 日本午夜av视频| 韩国av在线不卡| 男女啪啪激烈高潮av片| 久久人人爽人人片av| 国产永久视频网站| 亚洲精品成人av观看孕妇| 天天躁夜夜躁狠狠久久av| 久久久久网色| 欧美精品一区二区大全| 精品人妻熟女av久视频| 日本黄大片高清| 最近手机中文字幕大全| 免费观看在线日韩| 日本欧美国产在线视频| 全区人妻精品视频| 老司机亚洲免费影院| 亚洲欧美精品自产自拍| 亚洲国产色片| 久久热精品热| 18禁动态无遮挡网站| 一级,二级,三级黄色视频| 国产 精品1| 我的老师免费观看完整版| 色婷婷久久久亚洲欧美| 国产精品 国内视频| 人妻少妇偷人精品九色| 人妻夜夜爽99麻豆av| 中文乱码字字幕精品一区二区三区| 永久网站在线| 久久久久网色| 亚洲精品乱码久久久久久按摩| 日韩 亚洲 欧美在线| av网站免费在线观看视频| 亚洲欧美中文字幕日韩二区| 亚洲一区二区三区欧美精品| 久久久精品区二区三区| 欧美日韩精品成人综合77777| 如何舔出高潮| 日韩制服骚丝袜av| 在线观看人妻少妇| 久久人人爽人人爽人人片va| 免费人成在线观看视频色| 国产精品免费大片| 日韩在线高清观看一区二区三区| 综合色丁香网| 性高湖久久久久久久久免费观看| 最后的刺客免费高清国语| 国产熟女欧美一区二区| 亚洲av免费高清在线观看| 满18在线观看网站| 国产精品99久久99久久久不卡 | 免费黄网站久久成人精品| 亚洲欧美成人综合另类久久久| 中文字幕免费在线视频6| 看非洲黑人一级黄片| 精品99又大又爽又粗少妇毛片| 日韩不卡一区二区三区视频在线| 中文字幕人妻熟人妻熟丝袜美| 我的女老师完整版在线观看| 日韩电影二区| 亚洲av电影在线观看一区二区三区| 午夜福利,免费看| 天美传媒精品一区二区| 国产在线免费精品| 好男人视频免费观看在线| 九九在线视频观看精品| 曰老女人黄片| 视频在线观看一区二区三区| 婷婷色av中文字幕| 少妇丰满av| 精品亚洲乱码少妇综合久久| 亚洲精品乱久久久久久| 80岁老熟妇乱子伦牲交| 人人澡人人妻人| 免费大片黄手机在线观看| 美女福利国产在线| 最近中文字幕2019免费版| av国产久精品久网站免费入址| 99精国产麻豆久久婷婷| 国产精品久久久久久精品电影小说| 久久免费观看电影| 999精品在线视频| 久久精品国产自在天天线| 国产在线一区二区三区精| 中国三级夫妇交换| 人妻 亚洲 视频| 99九九线精品视频在线观看视频| 少妇高潮的动态图| 最后的刺客免费高清国语| 寂寞人妻少妇视频99o| 国产精品99久久99久久久不卡 | 亚洲av电影在线观看一区二区三区| 国产色婷婷99| 亚洲一级一片aⅴ在线观看| 自线自在国产av| 国产熟女午夜一区二区三区 | 亚洲精品视频女| 欧美日韩av久久| 大话2 男鬼变身卡| 亚洲四区av| 美女脱内裤让男人舔精品视频| 免费观看性生交大片5| 日韩一区二区视频免费看| 日日撸夜夜添| 嘟嘟电影网在线观看| 亚洲av国产av综合av卡| 大香蕉97超碰在线| 久久久国产精品麻豆| 黑人欧美特级aaaaaa片| 久久这里有精品视频免费| 99久久中文字幕三级久久日本| 午夜精品国产一区二区电影| 汤姆久久久久久久影院中文字幕| 亚洲人与动物交配视频| 22中文网久久字幕| 春色校园在线视频观看| 亚洲成色77777| 一区二区三区四区激情视频| 亚洲精品一二三| 久久人人爽人人爽人人片va| 日本91视频免费播放| 亚洲怡红院男人天堂| 99热这里只有精品一区| 男人操女人黄网站| 国产视频内射| 亚洲激情五月婷婷啪啪| 美女国产高潮福利片在线看| 一级毛片黄色毛片免费观看视频| 春色校园在线视频观看| freevideosex欧美| 内地一区二区视频在线| 夫妻性生交免费视频一级片| 精品午夜福利在线看| 18+在线观看网站| 久久99热这里只频精品6学生| 久久久久久久久久人人人人人人| 国产精品一区www在线观看| 国产精品成人在线| 亚洲国产精品国产精品| 男女边吃奶边做爰视频| 91精品三级在线观看| 午夜91福利影院| 亚洲av欧美aⅴ国产| 国产69精品久久久久777片| 亚洲av成人精品一二三区| 国产成人精品一,二区| 男女国产视频网站| 成人免费观看视频高清| 色婷婷久久久亚洲欧美| 制服诱惑二区| 国产一区有黄有色的免费视频| 免费av中文字幕在线| 国产精品99久久久久久久久| 午夜老司机福利剧场| 日韩一本色道免费dvd| 国产精品蜜桃在线观看| 亚洲国产欧美在线一区| 亚洲性久久影院| 午夜老司机福利剧场| 日韩av不卡免费在线播放| 国产一级毛片在线| 一本色道久久久久久精品综合| 久久久精品免费免费高清| 啦啦啦中文免费视频观看日本| 夜夜看夜夜爽夜夜摸| 韩国av在线不卡| 九九久久精品国产亚洲av麻豆| 国产淫语在线视频| 亚洲色图综合在线观看| 高清黄色对白视频在线免费看| 免费看av在线观看网站| 一本色道久久久久久精品综合| kizo精华| 最后的刺客免费高清国语| 视频在线观看一区二区三区| 丝瓜视频免费看黄片| 国产精品三级大全| 久久久久国产网址| 男人爽女人下面视频在线观看| 成人黄色视频免费在线看| 国产精品麻豆人妻色哟哟久久| 99九九线精品视频在线观看视频| 美女脱内裤让男人舔精品视频| 亚洲五月色婷婷综合| 最新中文字幕久久久久| 日韩欧美一区视频在线观看| 午夜福利视频精品| 一级,二级,三级黄色视频| 18禁观看日本| 黑人猛操日本美女一级片| 国产白丝娇喘喷水9色精品| 亚洲欧美中文字幕日韩二区| 国产欧美日韩综合在线一区二区| 亚洲精品久久成人aⅴ小说 | 国产伦理片在线播放av一区| 插阴视频在线观看视频| 日本与韩国留学比较| 91成人精品电影| 18禁在线播放成人免费| 免费观看av网站的网址| 啦啦啦啦在线视频资源| av又黄又爽大尺度在线免费看| 亚洲,欧美,日韩| 国内精品宾馆在线| 如日韩欧美国产精品一区二区三区 | 国产精品一区二区三区四区免费观看| 成年人午夜在线观看视频| 99热国产这里只有精品6| 精品一品国产午夜福利视频| 美女福利国产在线| 亚洲一区二区三区欧美精品| 极品少妇高潮喷水抽搐| 9色porny在线观看| 欧美日韩一区二区视频在线观看视频在线| 国产无遮挡羞羞视频在线观看| 中国三级夫妇交换| 久久精品国产亚洲av涩爱| 在线 av 中文字幕| 又大又黄又爽视频免费| 国产精品国产av在线观看| 嫩草影院入口| 日产精品乱码卡一卡2卡三| 老女人水多毛片| 视频中文字幕在线观看| 我的老师免费观看完整版| 久久久久久久国产电影| 男女国产视频网站| 精品国产露脸久久av麻豆| 另类精品久久| 高清av免费在线| 久久精品人人爽人人爽视色| 麻豆乱淫一区二区| 99久久中文字幕三级久久日本| 高清视频免费观看一区二区| 成年人午夜在线观看视频| 成人国产麻豆网| 亚洲精品一二三| 国产精品久久久久成人av| 69精品国产乱码久久久| 大又大粗又爽又黄少妇毛片口| 久久国产亚洲av麻豆专区| 亚洲精品日韩在线中文字幕| 十八禁高潮呻吟视频| 18禁在线播放成人免费| 人妻夜夜爽99麻豆av| 欧美成人午夜免费资源| 亚洲av电影在线观看一区二区三区| 亚洲第一区二区三区不卡| 在线亚洲精品国产二区图片欧美 | 成人免费观看视频高清| 亚洲精品日本国产第一区| 成人手机av| 乱人伦中国视频| 亚洲内射少妇av| 99re6热这里在线精品视频| 免费观看无遮挡的男女| 夫妻性生交免费视频一级片| 一区二区三区乱码不卡18| 大陆偷拍与自拍| 一级毛片我不卡| 亚洲经典国产精华液单| 亚洲国产最新在线播放| 国产成人午夜福利电影在线观看| 亚洲欧洲精品一区二区精品久久久 | 日韩人妻高清精品专区| 97精品久久久久久久久久精品| 免费高清在线观看视频在线观看| 久久精品久久久久久久性| 日本午夜av视频| 99久久人妻综合| 久久久久久久久大av| 日本欧美视频一区| 免费久久久久久久精品成人欧美视频 | av福利片在线| 成年av动漫网址| 女人精品久久久久毛片| 成年女人在线观看亚洲视频| 国产成人免费无遮挡视频| a级毛片在线看网站| videos熟女内射| 丰满迷人的少妇在线观看|