Safety and Feasibility of Umbilical Diverting Loop Ileostomy for Patients with Rectal Tumor

Quality of life amongst patients with diverting umbilical stomas in rectal surgery: a single centre prospective randomized controlled pilot study

BACKGROUND

The umbilical stoma (umbistoma) has been proposed as a viable alternative site for a temporary defunctioning stoma. Suggested advantages of the umbistoma include decreased number of surgical incisions required, improved cosmesis and ease of reversal surgery. This study aimed to assess the patient experience of umbilical loop ileostomies in rectal surgery, with the primary outcome being patient reported quality of life (QoL).

METHODS

A total of 20 patients undergoing laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery were randomly allocated to have a defunctioning ileostomy at a conventional site (right iliac fossa) or at the umbilicus. Patient-reported QoL was assessed at 6 weeks using the Stoma-QoL questionnaire. Secondary outcomes were number of stomas reversed, length of time awaiting stoma reversal surgery, duration of operative time for stoma reversal, length of hospital stay following stoma reversal and rate of parastomal or post reversal incisional hernias.

RESULTS

Patients who had an umbilical stoma scored significantly lower on the Stoma-QoL questionnaire compared to the conventional group, particularly on questions regarding feelings of tiredness, body insecurity and anxiety. No significant differences were observed between the two groups in relation to secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSION

There may be potential disadvantages to the umbilical stoma with negative impacts on body image and subsequent increased social anxiety. Patient selection and adequate counselling will be important when considering an umbilical stoma. Further larger scale prospective studies are required to further validate the feasibility and longer-term safety of umbilical stomas in both clinical outcomes as well as patient QoL.

Psychometric validation of the Ostomy Skin Tool 2.0

Background

Peristomal skin complications (PSCs) pose a major challenge for people living with an ostomy. To avoid severe PSCs, it is important that people with an ostomy check their peristomal skin condition on a regular basis and seek professional help when needed.

Aim

To validate a new ostomy skin tool (OST 2.0) that will make regular assessment of the peristomal skin easier.

Methods

Seventy subjects participating in a clinical trial were eligible for the analysis and data used for the validation. Item-level correlation with anchors, inter-item correlations, convergent validity of domains, test-retest reliability, anchor- and distribution-based methods for assessment of meaningful change were all part of the psychometric validation of the tool.

Results

A final tool was established including six patient reported outcome items and automatic assessment of the discolored peristomal area. Follow-up with cognitive debriefing interviews assured that the concepts were considered relevant for people with an ostomy.

Conclusion

The OST 2.0 demonstrated evidence supporting its reliability and validity as an outcome measure to capture both visible and non-visible peristomal skin complications.

Comparison of specimen extraction site and another site for protective loop ileostomy in laparoscopic low anterior rectal resection: a retrospective comparative study

BACKGROUND

Protective loop ileostomy is commonly performed in laparoscopic low anterior rectal resection to prevent the serious complications of anastomotic fistula. It is usually created at the right lower quadrant of the abdomen and another wound is required for stoma. The study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of ileostomy at the specimen extraction site (SES) and another site (AS) beside the auxiliary incision.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted on 101 eligible patients with pathologically diagnosed adenocarcinoma of the rectum from January 2020 to December 2021 in the study center. According to whether the ileostomy was at the specimen extraction site, patients were divided into SES group (40 patients) and AS group (61 patients). Clinicopathological characteristics, the intraoperative details, and postoperative outcomes of the two groups were measured.

RESULTS

Univariate analysis showed that the operative time was significantly shorter and the blood loss was significantly less in the SES group than in the AS group during laparoscopic low anterior rectal resection, the time to first flatus was significantly shorter, and the pain was significantly less in the SES group than in the AS group during ileostomy closure. The postoperative complications were similar in both groups. Multivariable analysis showed that ileostomy at the specimen extraction site was a significant factor influencing the operative time and blood loss of rectal resection, and influencing the pain and the time to first flatus during ileostomy closure.

CONCLUSION

Compared to ileostomy at AS, protective loop ileostomy at SES was time-saving and less bleeding during laparoscopic low anterior rectal resection, and more quick to first flatus and less pain during stoma closure, and did not lead to more postoperative complications. The median incision of the lower abdomen and the left lower abdominal incision were both good sites for ileostomy.

Which site is better for prophylactic ileostomy after laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery? By the specimen extraction site or new site: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

There is controversy about the outcomes of prophylactic ileostomy via the specimen extraction site (SES) after laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery (LRCS). We, therefore, performed a meta-analysis to determine the efficacy and safety of stoma through the SES versus new site (NS).

Methods

All relevant studies from 1997 to 2022 were searched in the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CNKI, VIP databases. This meta-analysis was performed using RevMan software 5.3 for statistical analysis.

Results

7 studies with 1736 patients were included. The present meta-analysis noted that prophylactic ileostomy via SES was associated with a higher risk of overall stoma-related complications, especially parastomal hernia (OR, 2.39, 95% CI 1.43-4.00; p=0.0008). No statistical difference was found in terms of wound infection, ileus, stoma edema, stoma prolapse, stoma necrosis, stoma infection, stoma bleeding, stoma stenosis, skin inflammation around the stoma, stoma retraction and postoperative pain score on postoperative day 1 and 3 between SES group and NS group. However, prophylactic ileostomy via SES was associated with lesser blood loss (MD = -0.38, 95% CI: -0.62 - -0.13; p=0.003), shorter operation time(MD = -0.43, 95% CI: -0.54 - -0.32 min; p<0.00001), shorter post-operative hospital stay (MD = -0.26, 95% CI: -0.43 - -0.08; p=0.004), shorter time to first flatus(MD = -0.23, 95% CI: -0.39 - -0.08; p=0.003) and lower postoperative pain score on postoperative day 2.

Conclusion

Prophylactic ileostomy via SES after LRCS reduces new incision, decreases operative time, promotes postoperative recovery, and improves cosmetic outcomes, but may increase the incidence of parastomal hernias. The vast majority of parastomal hernias can be repaired by closing the ileostomy, therefore SES remain an option for temporary ileostomy after LRCS.

Single Center Experience with Umbilical Stomas Following Colorectal Surgery

Background: The umbilicus is commonly used as an access site to perform minimally invasive colorectal surgery. Umbilical stomas are becoming an attractive option as an alternative site for temporary stomas since they reduce the need for additional abdominal incisions. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated patients who underwent umbilical stoma creation after colorectal resection for diagnosis of rectal cancer, diverticulitis, or ulcerative colitis between January 2020 and July 2021. Surgical technique, clinical and perioperative outcomes, complications, and cosmetic end results were described. Results: A total of 11 patients underwent umbilical stoma creation. There were no major surgical complications. Peristomal skin irritation was secondary to difficulties with the management of the pouching system. One patient presented with ostomy prolapse. Three patients experienced incisional hernia after stoma reversal. There were no wound infections. Conclusion: Umbilical stomas appear to be a safe alternative to conventional stomas and provide superior cosmetic outcomes.

Short-term and Medium-term Outcomes of Low Midline and Low Transverse Incisions in Laparoscopic Rectal Cancer Surgery

Purpose

Limited data exist on the use of low midline and transverse incisions for specimen extraction or stoma sites in laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery (LRCS). We compared the short-term and medium-term outcomes of these incisions and assessed whether wound complications in specimen extraction sites (SES) are increased by specimen extraction through the stoma site (SESS) in LRCS.

Methods

From March 2010 to December 2017, 189 patients who underwent LRCS and specimen extraction through low abdominal incisions were divided into 2 groups: midline (n = 102) and transverse (n = 87), and perioperative outcomes were compared.

Results

The midline group showed a higher frequency of temporary stoma formation (P = 0.001) and splenic flexure mobilization (P < 0.001) than the transverse group. The overall incisional hernia and wound infection rates in the SES were 21.6% and 25.5%, respectively, in the midline group and 26.4% and 17.2%, respectively, in the transverse group (P = 0.494 and P = 0.232, respectively). In patients who underwent SESS, the incisional hernia and wound infection rates of SES after stoma closure were 39.1% and 43.5%, respectively, in the midline group, and 35.5% and 22.6%, respectively, in the transverse group (P = 0.840 and P = 0.035, respectively).

Conclusion

In terms of incisional hernia and wound infection at the SES, a low midline incision may be used as a low transverse incision in patients without temporary stoma in LRCS. However, considering the high wound complication rates after stoma closure in patients with SESS in this study, SESS should be performed with caution in LRCS.

Surgical specimen extraction via a prophylactic ileostomy procedure: A minimally invasive technique for laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery

AIM

To retrospectively evaluate the safety and feasibility of surgical specimen extraction via a prophylactic ileostomy procedure in patient with rectal cancer.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed 331 consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic anterior resection for rectal cancer and prophylactic ileostomy in our institution from June 2010 to October 2016, including 155 patients who underwent specimen extraction via a prophylactic ileostomy procedure (experimental group), and 176 patients who underwent specimen extraction via a small lower abdominal incision (control group). Clinical data were collected from both groups and statistically analyzed.

RESULTS

The two groups were matched in clinical characteristics and pathological outcomes. However, mean operative time was significantly shorter in the experimental group compared to the control group (161.3 ± 21.5 min vs 168.8 ± 20.5 min; P = 0.001). Mean estimated blood loss was significantly less in the experimental group (77.4 ± 30.7 mL vs 85.9 ± 35.5 mL; P = 0.020). The pain reported by patients during the first two days after surgery was significantly less in the experimental group than in the control group. No wound infections occurred in the experimental group, but 4.0% of the controls developed wound infections (P = 0.016). The estimated 5-year disease-free survival and overall survival rate were similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Surgical specimen extraction via a prophylactic ileostomy procedure represents a secure and feasible approach to laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery, and embodies the principle of minimally invasive surgery.