Ghost ileostomy after anterior resection for rectal cancer: a preliminary experience

Clinical application of the B-type sutured ileostomy in robotic-assisted low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a propensity score matching analysis

Currently, there is no consensus on the position and method for temporary ileostomy in robotic-assisted low anterior resection for rectal cancer. Herein, this study introduced the B-type sutured ileostomy, a new temporary ileostomy technique, and compared it to the traditional one to assess its efficacy and safety. Between September 2020 and December 2022 in our centre, B-type sutured ileostomy was performed on 124 patients undergoing robotic-assisted low anterior resection for rectal cancer. A retrospective review of a prospectively collected database identified patients who underwent robotic-assisted low anterior resection for rectal cancer with a temporary ileostomy between January 2018 and December 2022. Patients who underwent B-type sutured ileostomy (B group) were matched in a 1:1 ratio with patients who underwent traditional ileostomy (Control group) using a propensity score based on age, sex, BMI, Comorbidity, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, and Prior abdominal surgery history. Surgical and postoperative outcomes, health status, and stoma closure data were analyzed for both groups. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier：NCT05915052.  The B group (n = 118) shows advantages compared to the Control group (n = 118) regarding total operation time (155.98 ± 21.63 min vs 168.92 ± 21.49 min, p = 0.001), postoperative body pain (81.92 ± 4.12 vs 78.41 ± 3.02, p = 0.001) and operation time of stoma closure (46.19 ± 11.30 min vs 57.88 ± 11.08 min, p = 0.025). The two groups had no other notable differences. The B-type sutured ileostomy is a safe and feasible option in robotic-assisted low anterior resection for rectal cancer. The B-type sutured ileostomy may offer advantages such as shorter overall surgical duration, lighter postoperative pain, and shorter second-stage ostomy incorporation surgery. However, attention should be directed towards the occurrence of stoma prolapse.

Short-Term Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Virtual/Ghost Ileostomy or Defunctioning Ileostomy after Anterior Resection of the Rectum: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Anterior rectal resection (ARR) represents one of the most frequently performed methods in colorectal surgery, mainly carried out for rectal cancer (RC) treatment. Defunctioning ileostomy (DI) has long been chosen as a method to "protect" colorectal or coloanal anastomosis after ARR. However, DI does not rule out risks of more or less serious complications. A proximal intra-abdominal closed-loop ileostomy, the so-called virtual/ghost ileostomy (VI/GI), could limit the number of DIs and the associated morbidity.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyzes (PRISMA) guidelines. Meta-analysis was performed by use of RevMan [Computer program] Version 5.4.

RESULTS

The five included comparative studies (VI/GI or DI) covering an approximately 20-year study period (2008-2021). All included studies were observational ones and originated from European countries. Meta-analysis indicated VI/GI as significantly associated with lower short-term morbidity rates related to VI/GI or DI after primary surgery (RR: 0.21, 95% CI: 0.07-0.64, p = 0.006), fewer dehydration (RR: 0.17, 95% CI: 0.04-0.75, p = 0.02) and ileus episodes after primary surgery (RR: 0.20, 95% CI: 0.05-0.77, p = 0.02), fewer readmissions after primary surgery (RR: 0.17, 95% CI: 0.07-0.43, p = 0.0002) and readmissions after primary surgery plus stoma closure surgery (RR: 0.14, 95% CI: 0.06-0.30, p < 0.00001) than the DI group. On the contrary, no differences were identified in terms of AL after primary surgery, short-term morbidity after primary surgery, major complications (CD ≥ III) after primary surgery and length of hospital stay after primary surgery. Conclusions: Given the significant biases among meta-analyzed studies (small overall sample size and the small number of events analyzed, in particular), our results require careful interpretation. Further randomized, possibly multi-center trials may be of paramount importance in confirming our results.

Perioperative intravenous dexamethasone for patients undergoing colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Dexamethasone is a glucocorticoid that is often administered intraoperatively as prophylaxis for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have examined its use in colorectal surgery. This systematic review aims to assess the postoperative impacts of dexamethasone use in colorectal surgery.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched from database inception to January 2023. Articles were included if they compared perioperative intravenous dexamethasone to a control group in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery in terms of postoperative morbidity. The primary outcomes were prolonged postoperative ileus (PPOI) and PONV. Secondary outcomes included postoperative infectious morbidity and return of bowel function. A pair-wise meta-analysis and GRADE assessment of the quality of evidence were performed.

RESULTS

After reviewing 3476 relevant citations, seven articles (five RCTs, two retrospective cohorts) met the inclusion criteria. Overall, 1568 patients received perioperative dexamethasone and 1459 patients received a control. Patients receiving perioperative dexamethasone experienced significantly less PPOI based on moderate-quality evidence (three studies, OR 0.46, 95%CI 0.28-0.74, p < 0.01). Time to first flatus was significantly reduced with intravenous dexamethasone. There was no difference between groups in terms of PONV (four studies, OR 0.90, 95%CI 0.64-1.27, p = 0.55), postoperative morbidity (OR 0.93, 95%CI 0.63-1.39, p = 0.74), or rate of postoperative infectious complications (seven studies, OR 0.74, 95%CI 0.55-1.01, p = 0.06).

CONCLUSION

This review presents moderate-quality evidence that perioperative intravenous dexamethasone may reduce PPOI and enhance the return of bowel function following elective colorectal surgery. There was no significant observed effect on PONV or postoperative infectious complications.

Comparative study between ghost ileostomy and defunctioning ileostomy in terms of morbidity and cost-effectiveness in low anterior resection for rectal cancer

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to compare ghost ileostomy (GI) and defunctioning ileostomy (DI) in patients who underwent low anterior resection (LAR) for rectal cancer in terms of postoperative morbidity, rehospitalization rates, and total costs.

METHODS

Patients with an anastomosis level between 5 and 10 cm from the anal verge after LAR were analyzed retrospectively. Clinical characteristics, operative outcomes, postoperative morbidity, rehospitalization rates, and total costs were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 123 patients were enrolled as follows: 42 patients in the GI group and 81 patients in the DI group. Anastomotic leakage (AL) was identified in three patients who underwent GI, and in all of them, GI was easily converted to DI. There were 96.3% of the patients with DI rehospitalized at least one time because of surgery-related and/or stoma-related complications or stoma closure. When we did not take into account the patients who were rehospitalized for stoma closure, the rates of rehospitalization were 4.7% and 22.2% in the GI and DI groups, respectively (P= 0.01). The mean total costs calculated by removing additional surgical procedures and adding all of the rehospitalization costs were 25,767 USD and 41,875 USD in the GI and DI groups, respectively (P= 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

GI may be a safe and cost-effective method in patients who underwent LAR with low or medium risk factors for AL. It is possible to avoid unnecessary ileostomy and reduce unwanted outcomes due to it, such as postoperative complications, rehospitalizations, and increased total costs by performing GI.

Ghost ileostomy versus conventional loop ileostomy in patients undergoing low anterior resection for rectal cancer (DRKS00013997): protocol for a randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Anastomotic leakage is the most important complication in colorectal surgery occurring in up to 20% after low anterior rectal resection. Therefore, a diverting ileostomy is usually created during low anterior resection to protect the anastomosis or rather to diminish the consequences in case of anastomotic leakage. The so-called virtual or ghost ileostomy is a pre-stage ostomy that can be easily exteriorised, if anastomotic leakage is suspected, in order to avoid the severe consequences of anastomotic leakage. On the other hand, an actual ileostomy can be avoided in patients, who do not develop anastomotic leakage.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The GHOST trial is a randomised controlled pilot trial comparing ghost ileostomy with conventional loop ileostomy in patients undergoing low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. After screening for eligibility and obtaining informed consent, a total of 60 adult patients are included in the trial. Patients are intraoperatively randomised to the trial groups in a 1:1 ratio after assuring that none of the intraoperative exclusion criteria are present. The main outcome parameter is the comprehensive complication index as a measure of safety. Further outcomes include specific complications, stoma-related complications, complications of ileostomy closure, frequency of transformation of ghost ileostomy into conventional ileostomy, frequency of terminal ostomy creation, proportion of patients with an ostomy at 6 months after index surgery, anorectal function (Wexner score) and quality of life assessed by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 and CR29 questionnaires. Follow-up for each individual patient will be 6 months.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The GHOST trial has been approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of Heidelberg University (reference number S-694/2017). If the intervention proves to be safe, loop ileostomy could be spared in a large proportion of patients, thus also avoiding stoma-related complications and a second operation (ileostomy closure) with its inherent complications in these patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

German Clinical Trials Registry (DRKS00013997); Universal Trial Number: U1111-1208-9742.

Indications and practice of diverting ileostomy after colorectal resection and anastomosis in ovarian cancer cytoreduction

OBJECTIVE

To determine the factors related with diverting ileostomy performance after colorectal resection and anastomosis, in advanced ovarian cancer cytoreductive surgery.

METHODS

We have previously demonstrated the risk factors associated with anastomotic leak after colorectal anastomosis: Advanced age at surgery, low serum albumin level, additional bowel resections, manual anastomosis and distance of the anastomosis from the anal verge. However, use of diverting ileostomy is strongly variable and depends on individual surgeon preferences and training. Eight hospitals participated in this retrospective study. Data of 695 patients operated for ovarian cancer with primary colorectal anastomosis were included (January 2010-June 2018). Fourteen pre-/intraoperatively defined variables were identified and analysed as justification factors for use of diverting ileostomy.

RESULTS

The rate of diverting ileostomy in the entire cohort was 19.13% (133/695; range within individual centers 4.6-24.32%). Previous treatment with bevacizumab [OR 2.8 (1.3-6.1); p=0.01]; additional bowel resections [OR 3.0 (1.8-5.1); p<0.001]; extended operating time [OR 1.005 (1.003-1.006); p<0.001] and intra-operative red blood transfusion [OR 2.7 (1.4-5.3); p<0.001] were found to be independently associated with diverting ileostomy performance. Assuming a 7% AL rate cut-off, up to 51.8% of DI presented an AL risk below 7% and might have been spared.

CONCLUSIONS

The risk factors that drive the gynecologic oncology surgeons to perform a diverting ileostomy, seem to differ from the actual risk factors that we have identified to be associated with postoperative anastomotic leak. Broader awareness of the risk factors that contribute to a higher perioperative risk profile, will facilitate a better risk stratification process and possibly avoid unnecessary stoma formation in ovarian cancer patients.

Virtual ileostomy in elective colorectal surgery: a systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic leak (AL) following colorectal surgery can be a life-threatening complication. The use of a diverting stoma has been proposed, to prevent or reduce morbidity and mortality associated with AL. Stomas, however, have their own distinct complications. Thus, virtual ileostomy (VI) has been proposed as an alternative to diverting stoma. The aim of the present study was to further evaluate the role of VI through systematic review of existing literature.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and the Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. The primary endpoint of our study was the estimation of the overall VI complication rate. Secondary endpoints included the identification of the VI-specific adverse outcomes, perioperative endpoints such as the length of hospital stay, transfusion and postoperative leak rates, description of the operative variations of VI reported VI operative variations and details regarding the primary operation and previous neoadjuvant therapy.

RESULTS

In total, 11 studies and 554 patients were included in this systematic review. Overall, 158 laparoscopic and 191 open procedures were performed. The AL and VI conversion rates were 11.9% and 10.46%, respectively. The total complication rate was estimated to be 13.9%, while VI-specific adverse events were recorded in 2.1% of all cases.

CONCLUSIONS

VI could be a safe and effective alternative to a diverting stoma. Although currently, VI is not widely used, it could have a widespread application in laparoscopic surgery. However, definitive trials are needed before firm recommendations on the use of VI can be made.

A Decalogue to Avoid Routine Ileostomy in Selected Patients With Border Line Risk to Develop Anastomotic Leakage After Minimally Invasive Low-Anterior Resection: A Pilot Study

Purpose. Protective ileostomy (PI) during anterior resection (AR) for rectal cancer decreases the incidence of anastomotic leakage (AL) and its subsequent complications, but it may itself be the cause of morbidity. The aim is to report our protocol in the management of selected patients with borderline risk to develop AL after laparoscopic AR and ghost ileostomy (GI) creation. Methods. Patients who underwent AR were stratified based on the risk to develop AL. Steps to avoid PI were splenic flexure mobilization, reduced pelvic bleeding, to employ different stapler charge if neoadjuvant chemo-radiotherapy is performed, to perform a horizontal section of the rectum, to evaluate the anastomotic vascularization with a fluorescence angiography, to perform a side-to-end anastomosis, intraoperative methylene blue test, pelvic and transanal drainage tubes placement, and the GI creation. After surgery, inflammatory blood markers were monitored to detect potential leakages. Results. Twelve patients were included. In one case, the specimen proximal section was changed after fluorescence angiography. There were no conversions in this group of patients. One postoperative AL occurred and was treated with radiological drainage placement, not being necessary to convert the GI. PI was avoided in 100% of cases. Conclusions. Patients' characteristics cannot be changed, but several steps were used to avoid routine PI creation. The present protocol could be a valuable option to avoid PI in selected patients. Further studies with a wider sample size, and defined criteria to stratify the patients based on the risk to develop AL, are required.

Comparative study of three different managements after colorectal anastomosis in ovarian cancer: conservative management, diverting ileostomy, and ghost ileostomy

Objective

Anastomotic leak remains the main concern after colorectal anastomosis in ovarian cancer. Our objective was to compare the use of three different management approaches after colorectal resection and anastomosis in patients with ovarian cancer.

Methods

Between January 2010 and June 2018, a total of 133 patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage II–IV ovarian cancer who underwent colorectal resection and anastomosis were included. According to the approach followed after colorectal anastomosis and during the post-operative period, patients were stratified into three groups: conservative management and observation, diverting ileostomy, or ghost ileostomy technique. Univariate analyses were performed for quantitative variables by applying Student’s t test or Mann-Whitney U test and for qualitative variables by using the χ2 test (or Fisher’s test according to the sample size).

Results

A total of 145 patients underwent colorectal resection during cytoreduction for FIGO stage II–IV ovarian cancer. Twelve patients were excluded because a colostomy was required. Thus, 133 patients were included in the final analysis. Modified posterior pelvic exenteration was performed in 121 (91%) patients and recto-sigmoid resection in 12 (9%) patients with relapse. The approach after anastomosis was wait-and-see in 72 patients (54.1%), diverting ileostomy in 19 patients (14.4%), and ghost ileostomy in 42 patients (31.5%). There were no differences in diagnosis, age, body mass index, ECOG (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group), histology, tumor grade, FIGO stage, or type of surgery between the groups. No differences were found regarding the anastomosis leak related factors or the rate of anastomotic leak between the three groups (5.6% vs 5.3% vs 4.8%; p=0.98). Two patients died because of the anastomotic leak in the wait-and-see group, and none died in the diverting ileostomy or ghost ileostomy group. In the diverting ileostomy group, a higher number of patients had complications compared with the ghost ileostomy group (78.9% vs 7.1%; p<0.01). Four patients (21.1%) developed dehydration due to high output stoma (>1500 mL) causing electrolyte imbalance in the diverting ileostomy group, and one patient (2.4%) in the ghost ileostomy group (p=0.03). The stoma reversal rate was 73.7% for the diverting ileostomy group and 100% for the ghost ileostomy group.

Conclusions

There were no differences found in the rate of anastomotic leak among the three groups of patients. The use of ghost ileostomy avoids the drawbacks of diverting ileostomy and seems to have advantages over routine diverting ileostomy and wait-and-see approaches for ovarian cancer patients undergoing colorectal anastomosis. Rates of stoma reversal are lower after diverting ileostomy when compared with ghost ileostomy.

Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after colorectal resection in ovarian cancer surgery: A multi-centre study

OBJECTIVE

To determine pre-/intraoperative risk factors for anastomotic leak after modified posterior pelvic exenteration (MPE) or colorectal resection in ovarian cancer and to create a practical instrument for predicting anastomotic leak risk.

BACKGROUND

In advanced ovarian cancer surgery, there is rather limited published evidence, drawn from a small sample, providing information about risk factors for anastomotic leak.

METHODS

Eight hospitals participated in this retrospective study. Data on 695 patients operated for ovarian cancer with primary anastomosis were included (January 2010-June 2018). Twelve pre-/intraoperative variables were analysed as potential independent risk factors for anastomotic leak. A predictive model was created to stablish the risk of anastomotic leak for a given patient.

RESULTS

The anastomotic leak rate was 6.6% (46/695; range 1.7%-12.5%). A total of 457 patients were included in the final multivariate analysis. The following variables were found to be independently associated with anastomotic leakage: age at surgery (OR 1.046, 95% CI 1.013-1.080, p = 0.005), serum albumin level (OR 0.621, 95% CI 0.407-0.948, p = 0.027), one or more additional small bowel resections (OR 3.544, 95% CI 1.228-10.23, p = 0.019), manual anastomosis (OR 8.356, 95% CI 1.777-39.301, p = 0.007) and distance of the anastomosis from the anal verge (OR 0.839, 95% CI 0.726-0.971, p = 0.018).

CONCLUSIONS

Due to the low incidence of AL in ovarian cancer patients, a restrictive stoma policy based on the presence of risk factors should be the actual recommendation. Hand-sewn anastomosis should be avoided.

Ghost Ileostomy in Advanced Ovarian Cancer: A Reliable Option

Objective

Diverting ileostomy (DI) has been proposed to reduce the incidence and consequences anastomotic leakage after bowel resection. In colorectal cancer treatment, ghost ileostomy (GI) has been proposed as an alternative to DI. Our objective was to report the results of GI associated with colorectal resection in the treatment of ovarian cancer.

Materials and Methods

This is an observational pilot study performed in a single institution. The main objective sought was to report the results of GI associated with colorectal resection in the treatment of ovarian cancer: 26 patients were included.

Results

Modified posterior exenteration was performed in 24 cases (92.3%) and rectum resection in the 2 cases of relapse (7.7%). After the main procedure GI was created, to check up the anastomosis status, a sequential postoperative rectoscopy was performed on postoperative day 5 ± 1 (range, 4–7). Serum levels were monitored in first and third postoperative days just with a descriptive intention to establish its relationship with the rectoscopy findings. In 2 cases, rectoscopy demonstrated a leakage. During postoperative course, no other complication related with the GI or DI was observed. No case of clinical anastomotic leakage was found.

Conclusions

To the extent of our knowledge, this is the first study in which GI has been performed for the treatment of patients with ovarian cancer. Ghost ileostomy represents a real option that may reduce the number of ileostomies performed in ovarian cancer without increasing the morbimortality. Ghost ileostomy presents the advantages of DI while avoiding its drawbacks. It also seems to be a safe, feasible, and reproducible technique that does not add significant costs to the surgery.

Routine Virtual Ileostomy Following Restorative Proctocolectomy for Familial Adenomatous Polyposis

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic leakage (AL) is the most feared complication in colorectal surgery. A diverting ileostomy is routinely used to prevent or reduce morbidity and mortality following AL. However, a diverting ileostomy cannot prevent AL. Besides, diverting ileostomy might be associated with relevant complications. Herein, we introduce the virtual ileostomy as an alternative to diverting ileostomy in patients undergoing restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) for familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The results of eight patients, five females and three males with a median age of 19.5 ± 6.0 years (range 16.0-31.0 years), undergoing restorative proctocolectomy with IPAA and virtual ileostomy for FAP are presented.

RESULTS

All cases were laparoscopically managed. The virtual ileostomy was released between postoperative day 7 and 9. No AL was registered. Postoperative recovery was uneventful in all cases.

CONCLUSION

A diverting ileostomy was prevented via the use of virtual ileostomy in all cases. Thus, virtual ileostomy is a good alternative to diverting ileostomy in patients undergoing restorative proctocolectomy with IPAA for FAP.

Does ghost ileostomy have a role in the laparoscopic rectal surgery era? A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic leakage following anterior rectal resection is the most important and most commonly faced complication of laparoscopy and open surgery. To prevent this complication, the construction of a preventing stoma is usually adopted. It is not easy to decide whether to construct a protective stoma in patients with a medium risk of anastomotic leakage. In these patients, ghost ileostomy (GI), a pre-stage ileostomy that can be externalized and opened if needed, has proved useful. We conducted a prospective, randomized, controlled study to evaluate the advantages of GI in laparoscopic rectal resection.

METHODS

All patients with surgical indications for laparoscopic rectal resection who were at medium risk for anastomotic leakage from January 2007 to January 2013 were included and were randomly divided in 2 groups. All of the patients were subjected to laparoscopic anterior rectal resection with the performance of GI (group A) or without the construction of any protective stoma (group B). The presence and severity of clinically evident postoperative anastomotic leakage and other postoperative complications and reinterventions were investigated.

RESULTS

Of the 55 patients allocated to group A, 3 experienced anastomotic leakage compared with 4 in group B. The patients with GI experienced a lower severity of anastomotic leakage and shorter hospitalization compared with the patients in group B. None of the patients with GI and anastomotic leakage required laparotomy to treat the dehiscence.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of GI in laparoscopic rectal resections in patients at medium risk for anastomotic leakage was useful because it allowed for the avoidance of stoma creation in all of the patients, thus reducing the number of stomas performed, improving the quality of life of the patients and preserving, in most cases, the benefits gained by laparoscopy.

Patient-reported outcomes after neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer: a systematic review

Neoadjuvant therapy followed by total mesorectal excision is standard of care for locally advanced rectal cancer. However, this approach has been previously shown to be associated with high rate of morbidity and it may have a negative effect on patients' reported outcomes (PROs). In order to summarize findings on the effect of the neoadjuvant approach on PROs, we systematically reviewed articles published in the last five years. Thirty-five articles met the inclusion criteria. Ten articles compared the effect of surgery with and without neoadjuvant therapy, six articles compared different neoadjuvant therapies, ten articles reported on patients who were all treated with neoadjuvant therapy, and nine articles examined the effect of neoadjuvant therapy in the analyses. The results are summarized by function investigated and critically commented.

Quality of life after surgery for rectal cancer

Patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is now considered a relevant clinical outcome. This study systematically reviewed articles published in the last 5 years, focusing on the impact of rectal cancer treatment on patients' HRQoL. Of the 477 articles retrieved, 56 met the inclusion criteria. The most frequently reported comparisons were between surgical procedures (21 articles), especially between sphincter-preserving and non-sphincter preserving surgery or between stoma and stoma-free patients (13 articles), and between multimodality therapies (11 articles). Additionally, twelve articles compared patients' and healthy controls' HRQoL as primary or secondary aim. The majority of the studies were observational (84 %), controlled (66 %), cross-sectional (54 %), prospective (100 %), with a sample of more than 100 patients (59 %), and with more than 60 % of patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy (50 %). The most frequently used instruments were the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30), its colorectal cancer specific module QLQ-CR38, and the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 36 items questionnaire. Findings from the included articles are summarised and commented, with a special focus on the comparison between surgical treatments, between irradiated and not-irradiated patients, and between patients and the general population.

Ghost ileostomy in anterior resection for rectal carcinoma: is it worthwhile?

BACKGROUND

There is no consensus in the literature as to whether all patients who undergo anterior resection of the rectum with total mesorectal excision should have a defunctioning stoma or only those at high risk of anastomotic dehiscence.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the results of placing a removable Silastic band around the ileum during the abdominal phase to exteriorize it and create a loop ileostomy postoperatively without the need for laparotomy in case of an anastomotic complication. This approach is known as "ghost ileostomy."

INTERVENTIONS

A vascular loop was passed around the terminal ileum through a window adjacent to the ileal wall. The loop was then exteriorized, through the abdominal wall, without tension, and secured to the skin on a rod. Two 24F Silastic drains were placed next to the anastomosis (anteriorly and posteriorly).

PATIENTS

From May 1997 to May 2011, 168 patients underwent anterior resection of the rectum with total mesorectal excision plus ghost ileostomy.

RESULTS

Symptomatic anastomotic dehiscence was observed in 20 of 168 patients (11.96%) and developed on postoperative days 4 to 12 (median, postoperative day 7). In 13 of 20 cases, an ileostomy was fashioned with the patient under local anesthesia, and there was no need for relaparotomy. In 5 of 20 cases, the complication resolved with conservative management. In 2 of 20 cases, the patient's clinical condition rapidly deteriorated, generalized peritonitis developed, and surgical reintervention with abdominal toilette and colostomy was required.

CONCLUSIONS

Ghost ileostomy allows selective loop ileostomy formation after low anterior resection of the rectum without the need for laparotomy in most cases. However, the technique should be reserved for instances in which the risk of leak is relatively low, such as anastomoses performed in the absence of neoadjuvant therapy. The role of routine ghost ileostomy following higher-risk anastomoses remains to be determined.

Ghost Ileostomy with or without abdominal parietal split

Background

In patients who undergo low anterior rectal resection, the fashioning of a covering stoma (CS) is still controversial. In fact, a covering stoma (ileostomy or colostomy) is worsened by major complications related to the procedure, longer recovery time, necessity of a re-intervention under general anesthesia for stoma closure and poorer quality of life. The advantage of Ghost Ileostomy (GI) is that an ileostomy can be performed only when there is clinical evidence of anastomotic leakage, without performing further interventions with related complications when anastomotic leak is absent and therefore the procedure is not necessary. Moreover, in case of anastomotic dehiscence and necessity of delayed stoma opening, mortality and morbidity in patients with GI are comparable with the ones that occur in patients which had a classic covering stoma. On the other hand, is simple to think about the possible economic saving: avoiding an admission for performing the closure of the ileostomy, with all the costs connected (OR, hospitalization, post-operative period, treatment of possible complications) represents a huge saving for the hospital management and also raise the quality of life of the patients.

Methods

In this study we prospectively analyzed 20 patients who underwent anterior extra-peritoneal rectum resection for rectal carcinoma with TME and fashioning of GI realized with or without abdominal parietal split.

Results

In the group of patients that received a GI without split laparotomy mortality was absent and in one case an anastomotic leak occurred. In the group of patients in which GI with split laparotomy was fashioned, one death occurred and there were one case of infection and one respiratory complication. Clinical follow-up was 12 months.

Conclusions

The use of different techniques for fashioning a GI do not present significant differences when they are performed by expert surgeons, but further evidence is needed with more randomized trials, in order to have more data supporting the clinical observation.