The risk of definitive stoma formation at 10 years after low and ultralow anterior resection for rectal cancer

Prophylactic pelvic drainage after rectal resection with extraperitoneal anastomosis: is it worthwhile? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The role of prophylactic pelvic drainage in reducing the postoperative complication rate after rectal surgery remains unclear and controversial.

OBJECTIVE

This review and meta-analysis of prospective randomized controlled trials was performed to determine whether drainage of the extraperitoneal anastomosis after rectal surgery impacts the postoperative complication rate.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Study eligibility criteria included randomized controlled trials comparing prophylactic pelvic drainage after rectal surgery.

METHODS

The Medline and Cochrane Trials Register databases were searched for prospective randomized controlled trials comparing drainage versus no drainage after rectal surgery. Studies published until December 2016 were included. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.0 (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK).

RESULTS

Three randomized controlled trials involving 660 patients with extraperitoneal anastomosis after rectal surgery (330 with and 330 without prophylactic pelvic drains) were included. The overall mortality rate was 0.7% (2/267) in the drain group and 1.9% (5/261) in the no-drain group (P = 0.900). The anastomotic leakage rate was 14.8% (49/330) in the drain group and 16.7% (55/330) in the no-drain group (P = 0.370). The postoperative small bowel obstruction rate was significantly higher in the drain than no-drain group (50/267, 18.7% vs. 33/261, 12.6%; odds ratio, 1.61; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-2.60; P = 0.050).

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic use of pelvic drainage after extraperitoneal colorectal anastomosis has no impact on the incidence of anastomotic leakage or postoperative death. However, it significantly increases the rate of postoperative small bowel obstruction.

Use of a nomogram to predict the closure rate of diverting ileostomy after low anterior resection: A retrospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Although temporary ileostomy is widely used to prevent complications due to anastomotic leakage after middle and low rectal cancer surgery, some patients fail to achieve stoma closure after primary surgery. The aim of this study was to identify the risk factors for permanent stoma following low anterior resection (LAR) or intersphincteric resection (ISR) with a temporary ileostomy for rectal cancer, while focusing on the time course, to develop a nomogram that can predict the rate of unreversed ileostomy 1 year after initial surgery.

METHOD

A total of 212 consecutive rectal cancer patients who underwent LAR or ISR with or without a temporary stoma between 2012 and 2015 at the University of Tokyo Hospital were retrospectively reviewed. Data analyses were performed using JMP Pro 11.0 and R 3.0.1 with rms and Hmisc packages to identify the risk factors for diverting ileostomy resulting in un-reversed stoma, and to develop a nomogram using these factors.

RESULTS

Among 212 patients, diverting ileostomy and colostomy were performed in 116 and 11 patients, respectively, and a stoma was not created in 85 patients. Among the ileostomy cases, 94 underwent stoma reversal, and the median interval from initial surgery to stoma closure was 6.9 months. Three patients eventually underwent stoma re-creation, and hence, 25 patients had permanent stoma. The following variables were correlated with the stoma non-reversal rate and were included in the nomogram: depth of invasion (p = 0.02), presence of metastatic organs (p = 0.07), and preoperative chemoradiotherapy (p = 0.03). The nomogram C-index was 0.612, indicating moderate predictive ability.

CONCLUSIONS

The most common factors preventing stoma closure included distant metastasis or rectal cancer recurrence. The nomogram developed in the present study can help identify rectal cancer patients with high risk of stoma non-reversal.

Risk factor for permanent stoma and incontinence quality of life after sphincter-preserving surgery for low rectal cancer without a diverting stoma

The goal of the present study was to evaluate permanent stoma formation and defecation function in long-term follow up after surgery for low rectal cancer without a diverting stoma. Subjects were 275 patients who underwent sphincter-preserving surgery for low rectal cancer between 2000 and 2012. Clinical outcomes were evaluated and defecation function was assessed based on a questionnaire survey, using Wexner and modified fecal incontinence quality of life (mFIQL) scores. Incidence of anastomotic leakage was 21.8%, and surgery-related death as a result of anastomotic leakage occurred in one male patient. Median follow-up period was 4.9 years and permanent stoma formation rate was 16.7%. Anastomotic leakage was an independent predictor of permanent stoma formation (odds ratio [OR] 5.86, P<0.001). Age <65 years (OR 1.99, P=0.001) and male gender (OR 4.36, P=0.026) were independent predictors of anastomotic leakage. A permanent stoma was formed as a result of poor healing of anastomotic leakage in 29.6% of males, but in no females. Defecation function was surveyed in 27 and 116 patients with and without anastomotic leakage, respectively. These groups had no significant differences in median follow-up period (63.5 vs 63 months), Wexner scores (quartile) (6 (2.5-9) vs 6 (3-11)), and mFIQL scores (26.1 (4.8-64.2) vs 23.8 (5.9-60.7). Defecation function associated with anastomotic leakage showed no significant dependence on gender or resection procedure. Sphincter-preserving surgery without a diverting stoma may be indicated for females with low rectal cancer. In this procedure, male gender is a risk factor for anastomotic leakage and subsequent formation of a permanent stoma in one in three patients.

Risk Factors Associated With Nonclosure of Defunctioning Stomas After Sphincter-Preserving Low Anterior Resection of Rectal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Some patients receiving defunctioning stomas will never undergo stoma reversal, but it is difficult to preoperatively predict which patients will be affected.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this meta-analysis was to identify the risk factors associated with nonclosure of temporary stomas after sphincter-preserving low anterior resection for rectal cancer.

DATA SOURCES

We performed a comprehensive search of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Library databases for all of the studies analyzing risk factors for nonclosure of defunctioning stomas.

STUDY SELECTION

We only included articles published in English in this meta-analysis. The inclusion criteria were as follows: 1) original article with extractable data, 2) studies including only defunctioning stomas created after low anterior resection for rectal cancer, 3) studies with nonclosure rather than delayed closure as the main end point, and 4) studies analyzing risk factors for nonclosure.

INTERVENTION

Defunctioning stomas were created after low anterior resection for rectal cancer.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Stoma nonclosure was the only end point, and it included nonclosure and permanent stoma creation after primary stoma closure. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess methodologic quality of the studies, and risk ratios and 95% CIs were used to assess risk factors.

RESULTS

Ten studies with 8568 patients were included. The nonclosure rate was 19% (95% CI, 13%-24%; p < 0.001; I= 96.2%). Three demographic factors were significantly associated with nonclosure: older age (risk ratio= 1.50 (95% CI, 1.12-2.02); p = 0.007; I= 39.3%), ASA score >2 (risk ratio = 1.66 (95% CI, 1.51-1.83); p < 0.001; I= 0%), and comorbidities (risk ratio = 1.58 (95% CI, 1.29-1.95); p < 0.001; I= 52.6%). Surgical complications (risk ratio = 1.89 (95% CI, 1.48-2.41); p < 0.001; I= 29.7%), postoperative anastomotic leakage (risk ratio = 3.39 (95% CI, 2.41-4.75); p < 0.001; I= 53.0%), stage IV tumor (risk ratio = 2.96 (95% CI, 1.73-5.09); p < 0.001; I= 88.1%), and local recurrence (risk ratio = 2.84 (95% CI, 2.11-3.83); p < 0.001; I= 6.8%) were strong clinical risk factors for nonclosure. Open surgery (risk ratio = 1.47 (95% CI, 1.01-2.15); p = 0.044; I= 63.6%) showed a borderline significant association with nonclosure.

LIMITATIONS

Data on some risk factors could not be pooled because of the low number of studies. There was conspicuous heterogeneity between the included studies, so the pooled data were not absolutely free of exaggeration or influence.

CONCLUSIONS

Older age, ASA score >2, comorbidities, open surgery, surgical complications, anastomotic leakage, stage IV tumor, and local recurrence are risk factors for nonclosure of defunctioning stomas after low anterior resection in patients with rectal cancer, whereas tumor height, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy are not. Patients with these risk factors should be informed preoperatively of the possibility of nonreversal, and joint decision-making is preferred.

Intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer

For low rectal cancer located < 5 cm from the anal verge, abdominoperineal resection (APR) with permanent sigmoid colostomy is usually used to ensure the R0 resection. Sphincter saving surgery has emerged in the last 20 years, and the introduction of intersphincteric resection (ISR) can successfully preserve the anal function and guarantee a radical tumor resection for patients with ultra-low lying tumors. Therefore, the use of APR has been consistently declining worldwide. Recently, a growing body of research on ISR has been reported. However, more evidence based results are needed to clarify some issues about ISR. In the current review, we discuss the indications for ISR and the oncological and functional outcomes following the procedure. Some technique issues of ISR are also discussed.