Loop versus end colostomy reversal: has anything changed?

Colorectal resection in emergency general surgery: An EAST multicenter trial

OBJECTIVE

Evidence comparing stoma creation (STM) versus anastomosis after urgent or emergent colorectal resection is limited. This study examined outcomes after colorectal resection in emergency general surgery patients.

METHODS

This was an Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma-sponsored prospective observational multicenter study of patients undergoing urgent/emergent colorectal resection. Twenty-one centers enrolled patients for 11 months. Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative variables were recorded. χ, Mann-Whitney U test, and multivariable logistic regression models were used to describe outcomes and risk factors for surgical complication/mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 439 patients were enrolled (ANST, 184; STM, 255). The median (interquartile range) age was 62 (53-71) years, and the median Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) was 4 (1-6). The most common indication for surgery was diverticulitis (28%). Stoma group was older (64 vs. 58 years, p < 0.001), had a higher CCI, and were more likely to be immunosuppressed. Preoperatively, STM patients were more likely to be intubated (57 vs. 15, p < 0.001), on vasopressors (61 vs. 13, p < 0.001), have pneumoperitoneum (131 vs. 41, p < 0.001) or fecal contamination (114 vs. 33, p < 0.001), and had a higher incidence of elevated lactate (149 vs. 67, p < 0.001). Overall mortality was 13%, which was higher in STM patients (18% vs. 8%, p = 0.02). Surgical complications were more common in STM patients (35% vs. 25%, p = 0.02). On multivariable analysis, management with an open abdomen, intraoperative blood transfusion, and larger hospital size were associated with development of a surgical complication, while CCI, preoperative vasopressor use, steroid use, open abdomen, and intraoperative blood transfusion were independently associated with mortality.

CONCLUSION

This study highlights a tendency to perform fecal diversion in patients who are acutely ill at presentation. There is a higher morbidity and mortality rate in STM patients. Independent predictors of mortality include CCI, preoperative vasopressor use, steroid use, open abdomen, and intraoperative blood transfusion. Following adjustment by clinical factors, method of colon management was not associated with surgical complications or mortality.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic study, level IV.

Meta-analysis on surgical management of colonic injuries in trauma: to divert or to anastomose?

BACKGROUND

Primary repair or resection with anastomosis (PR/A) has been gaining increasing recognition for traumatic colonic injuries, with the need for faecal diversion (FD) especially those of penetrating etiology being questioned. However, the role of PR/A in critically ill patients is still controversial with concerns pertaining to safety and anastomotic leak.

AIMS AND METHODS

We performed a systemic review of studies comparing outcomes of FD versus PR/A in traumatic colonic injuries. A systematic review was performed as per PRISMA guidelines utilizing three electronic databases: Pubmed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library resources. Mortality and anastomotic leak rates are identified as the primary and secondary outcomes, respectively. Data extracted include mortality rates, type of surgical intervention, surgical complications, and need for DC (damage control) surgery.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were identified comprising 11 retrospective, 2 prospective cohort and 1 randomized trial with a total of 2071 patients. Six studies included patients that underwent DC surgery. The overall mortality rate was 3.77% and was higher in the FD group compared to PR/A group (5.38% vs 2.49%, p = 0.07). 71.3% of patients underwent PR/A with an overall leak rate of 4.63%. There was no difference in intra-abdominal collections between the PR/A and FD groups. In the subgroup analysis, anastomotic leak rate was significantly higher in the DC group compared to non-DC group (16.7% vs 3.2%, p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis supports PR/A in stable patients with traumatic colonic injuries. FD should be considered in critically ill patients who require DC surgery as leak rates are significantly higher.

Analysis of over 2 decades of colon injuries identifies optimal method of diversion: Does an end justify the means?

INTRODUCTION

Conflicting evidence exists regarding the definitive management of destructive colon injuries. Although diversion with an end ostomy can theoretically decrease initial complications, it mandates a more extensive reversal procedure. Conversely, anastomosis with proximal loop ostomy diversion, while simplifying the reversal, increases the number of suture lines and potential initial morbidity. Thus, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of diversion technique on morbidity and mortality in patients with destructive colon injuries.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with destructive colon injuries managed with diversion from 1996 to 2016 were stratified by demographics, severity of shock and injury, operative management, and timing of reversal. Outcomes, including ostomy complications (obstruction, ischemia, readmission) and reversal complications (obstruction, abscess, suture line failure, fascial dehiscence), were compared between patients managed with a loop versus end colostomy. Patients with rectal injuries and who died within 24 hours were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 115 patients were identified: 80 with end colostomy and 35 with loop ostomy. Ostomy complications occurred in 22 patients (19%), and 11 patients (10%) suffered reversal complications. There was no difference in ostomy-related (2.9% vs. 3.8%, p = 0.99) mortality. For patients without a planned ventral hernia (PVH), there was no difference in ostomy complications between patients managed with a loop versus end colostomy (12% vs. 18%, p = 0.72). However, patients managed with a loop ostomy had a shorter reversal operative time (95 vs. 245 minutes, p = 0.002) and reversal length of stay (6 vs. 10, p = 0.03) with fewer reversal complications (0% vs. 36%, p = 0.02). For patients with a PVH, there was no difference in outcomes between patients managed with a loop versus end colostomy.

CONCLUSION

For patients without PVH, anastomosis with proximal loop ostomy reduced reversal-related complications, operative time, LOS, and hospital charges without compromising initial morbidity. Therefore, loop ostomy should be the preferred method of diversion, if required, following destructive colon injury.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, level IV.