Loop ileostomy closure after laparoscopic versus open surgery: is there a difference?

Laparoscopic application of sodium hyaluronate-carboxymethylcellulose barrier in abdominopelvic surgery: A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Systematic Review Protocols-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

We aimed to evaluate the incidence of postoperative adhesion formation and adhesion-related consequences (eg, bowel obstruction) after placement of a sodium hyaluronate-carboxymethylcellulose adhesion barrier after laparoscopic abdominopelvic surgery.

METHODS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online and Embase via Ovid, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ScienceDirect, BIOSIS Previews, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Clinical Trial Registries. A manual search (eg, Google Scholar and professional association websites) was also conducted to supplement the electronic database results. Two reviewers independently identified relevant studies based on inclusion and exclusion criteria and extracted data.

RESULTS

A total of 28 studies were included in the systematic qualitative review. Three of the 28 studies included had comparable outcome measures, interventions, and control groups, allowing the pooling of study data. A total of 938 patients (490 patients in the sodium hyaluronate-carboxymethylcellulose barrier group and 448 in the no adhesion barrier group) from these 3 studies were included in the meta-analyses, which found the incidence of bowel obstruction was significantly lower (65% risk reduction) in the sodium hyaluronate-carboxymethylcellulose barrier group compared with the control group (relative risk = 0.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.19-0.63; P = .005) with extremely low heterogeneity between studies (I2 = 0; P = .41). The placement of sodium hyaluronate-carboxymethylcellulose barrier laparoscopically did not create new safety signals nor did it increase the incidence of adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis found that laparoscopic application of a sodium hyaluronate-carboxymethylcellulose barrier in abdominopelvic surgery reduces the risk of bowel obstruction where applied during the early postoperative phase.

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.

Loop Ileostomy Closure as a 23-Hour Stay Procedure With Preoperative Efferent Limb Enteral Stimulation: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Loop ileostomy closure is a common procedure in colorectal surgery. Often seen as a simple operation associated with a low complication rate, it still leads to lengthy hospitalizations. Reducing postoperative complications and ileus rates could lead to a shorter length of stay and even ambulatory surgery.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to assess the safety and feasibility of ileostomy closure performed in a 23-hour hospitalization setting using a standardized enhanced recovery pathway.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial.

SETTINGS

Two high-volume colorectal surgery centers.

PATIENTS

Healthy adults undergoing elective ileostomy closure from July 2019 to January 2022.

INTERVENTION

All patients were enrolled in a standardized enhanced recovery pathway specific to ileostomy closure, including daily irrigation of efferent limb with a nutritional formula for 7 days before surgery. Patients were randomly allocated to either conventional hospitalization (n = 23) or a 23-hour stay (n = 24).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome was total length of stay and secondary outcomes were 30-day rates of readmission, postoperative ileus, surgical site infections, and postoperative morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 47 patients were ultimately randomly allocated. Patients in the 23-hour hospitalization arm had a shorter median length of stay (1 vs 2 days, p = 0.02) and similar rates of readmission (4% vs 13%, p = 0.35), postoperative ileus (none in both arms), surgical site infection (0% vs 4%, p = 0.49), postoperative morbidity (21% vs 22%, p = 1.00), and mortality (none in both arms).

LIMITATIONS

Due to coronavirus disease 2019, access to surgical beds was greatly limited, leading to a shift toward ambulatory surgery for ileostomy closure. The study was terminated early, which affected its statistical power.

CONCLUSION

Loop ileostomy closures as 23-hour stay procedures are feasible and safe. Ileus rate might be reduced by preoperative intestinal stimulation with nutritional formula through the stoma's efferent limb, although specific randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm this association. See Video Abstract .

CIERRE DE ILEOSTOMA EN ASA COMO PROCEDIMIENTO AMBULATORIO DE HORAS CON ESTMULO PREOPERATORIO ENTERAL EFERENTE ESTUDIO ALEATORIO CONTROLADO

ANTECEDENTES:El cierre de la ileostomía en asa es un procedimiento común en la cirugía colorrectal. A menudo vista como una operación simple asociada con bajas tasas de complicaciones, aún conduce a largas hospitalizaciones. La reducción de las complicaciones postoperatorias y las tasas de íleo podría conducir a una estadía hospitalaria más corta o incluso a una cirugía ambulatoria.OBJETIVOS:El presente estudio pretende evaluar la seguridad y la viabilidad del cierre de ileostomía realizadas en un entorno de hospitalización de 23 horas utilizando una vía de recuperación mejorada y estandarizada.DISEÑO:Estudio aleatorio controladoAJUSTES:Dos centros de cirugía colorrectal de gran volúmenPACIENTES:Adultos sanos sometidos a cierre electivo de ileostomía, desde Julio de 2019 hasta Enero de 2022.INTERVENCIÓN:Todos los pacientes fueron inscritos en una vía de recuperación mejorada y estandarizada específica para el cierre de la ileostomía, incluyendo la irrigación diaria de la extremidad eferente del intestino asociada a una fórmula nutricional durante 7 días previos a la cirugía. Los pacientes fueron asignados aleatoriamente en hospitalización convencional (n = 23) o a una estadía de 23 horas (n = 24).PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:El resultado primario fue la duración total de la estadía hospitalaria y los resultados secundarios fueron las tasas de reingreso a los 30 días, el íleo postoperatorio, las infecciones de la herida quirúrgica, la morbilidad y mortalidad postoperatorias.RESULTADOS:Finalmente fueron randomizados un total de 47 pacientes. Aquellos que se encontraban en el grupo de hospitalización de 23 horas tuvieron una estadía media más corta (1 día versus 2 días, p = 0,02) y tasas similares de reingreso (4% vs 13%, p = 0,35), de íleo postoperatorio (ninguno en ambos brazos), de infección del sitio quirúrgico (0 vs 4%, p = 0,49), de morbilidad postoperatoria (21% vs 22%, p > 0,99) y de mortalidad (ninguna en ambos brazos).LIMITACIONES:Debido a la pandemia SARS CoV-2, el acceso a las camas quirúrgicas fue muy limitado, lo que llevó a un cambio hacia la cirugía ambulatoria para el cierre de ileostomías. El estudio finalizó anticipadamente, lo que afectó su poder estadístico.CONCLUSIÓN:Los cierres de ileostomía en asa como procedimientos de estadía de 23 horas son factibles y seguros. La tasa de íleo podría reducirse mediante la estimulación intestinal preoperatoria a través de la rama eferente del estoma asociada a fórmulas nutricionales, por lo que se necesitan estudios randomizados específicos para confirmar esta asociación. (Traducción-Dr. Xavier Delgadillo ).

Rectal stimulation with prebiotics and probiotics before ileostomy reversal: a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Ileostomy closure is associated with a high rate of postoperative morbidity, and adynamic ileus is the most common complication, with an incidence of up to 32%. This complication is associated with delayed initiation of oral diet intake, abdominal distention, prolonged hospital stay, and more significant patient discomfort. The present study aims to evaluate the rectal stimulus with prebiotics and probiotics before ileostomy reversal.

METHODS

This is a protocol study for an open-label randomized controlled clinical trial. Ethical approval was received (CAAE: 56551722.6.0000.0071). The following criteria will be used for inclusion: adult patients with rectal cancer stages cT3/4Nx or cTxN+ that underwent loop protection ileostomy, patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, and patients who underwent laparoscopic or robotic total mesorectal excision. Patients will be randomized to one of two groups. The intervention group (with rectal stimulus): the patients will apply 500 ml of saline solution with 6 g of Simbioflora® rectally, once a day, for 15 days before ileostomy closure. The control group (without rectal stimulation): the patients will close the ileostomy with no previous rectal stimulus. The primary outcomes will be the adynamic ileus (need for postoperative nasogastric tube insertion; nausea/vomiting; or intolerance to oral feedings within the first 72 h) and intestinal transit (time to first evacuation/flatus).

RESULTS

The patient's enrollment starts in January 2023. We expect to finish in July 2025.

DISCUSSION

The findings of this randomized clinical study may have important implications for managing patients undergoing ileostomy reversal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study is registered in the Brazilian Trial Registry (ReBEC) under RBR-366n64w. Registration date: 19/07/2022.

Single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) versus conventional laparoscopic technique for ileostomy: a retrospective cohort study

PURPOSE

Minimal-invasive surgery has gained wide acceptance in colorectal surgery. Single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) was designed to minimize surgical trauma and improve postoperative outcome. However, the role of SILS in ileostomy formation is unclear.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study 26 patients were included. Six patients were operated with SILS and 20 with conventional laparoscopic technique for ileostomy. We retrospectively evaluated patient charts for baseline characteristics including prior abdominal surgeries and combination of surgeries. Our primary efficacy objectives were operation time and postoperative hospitalization days. Our safety objectives included the prevalence of postoperative pain, parastomal hernia, incisional hernia, perforation, wound infection, ileus, and infections in general.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics including previous abdominal surgery and concomitant surgeries were comparable in both groups. Total operation time using SILS (37.5 ± 6.2 min [mean ± SD]), compared to laparoscopic surgery (82.2 ± 54.8 min [mean ± SD]) was significantly shorter (p = 0.0002). In a sensitivity analysis excluding patients with combined surgery, ileostomy formation by SILS was shorter (36.5 ± 6.2 min [mean ± SD]), compared to laparoscopy (59.7 ± 28.7 min [mean ± SD]; p = 0.024). Length of postoperative stay was not statistically different between the groups (SILS: 5.5 ± 2.4 days [mean ± SD]; laparoscopic: 13.8 ± 17.3 days [mean ± SD], p = 0.193). Postoperative complication rates were low and comparable in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Placement of a loop ileostomy using SILS technique not only reduces surgical trauma but also operation time without affecting postoperative hospital stay or postoperative complication rates. Single-incision laparoscopic surgery for ileostomy is an appealing approach for ileostomy in selected patients.

Can physiological stimulation prior to ileostomy closure reduce postoperative ileus? A prospective multicenter pilot study

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to assess the impact of ileostomy closure following preoperative physiological stimulation (PPS) on postoperative ileus (POI) in patients with loop ileostomy after low anterior resection for rectal cancer.

METHODS

Patients who underwent ileostomy closure between January 2017 and February 2020 in two tertiary referral centers were prospectively included. PPS stimulation was compared to standard treatment. Stimulation was carried out daily during the 15 days prior to ileostomy closure by the patient's self-instillation of 200 ml of fecal contents from the ileostomy bag via the efferent loop, using a rectal catheter. Standard treatment (ST) consisted of observation. Outcomes measures were POI, morbidity, stimulation feasibility, and predictors to ileus.

RESULTS

A total of 58 patients were included [42 males and 16 females, median age 67 (43-85) years]. PPS was used in 24 patients, who completed the entire stimulation process, and ST in 34 patients. No differences in preoperative factors were found between the two groups. POI was significantly lower in the PPS group (4.2%) vs the ST group (32.4%); p < 0.01, OR: 0.05 (CI 95% 0.01-0.65). The PPS group had a shorter time to restoration of bowel function (1 day vs 3 days) p = 0.02 and a shorter time to tolerance of liquids (1 day vs 2 days), p = 0.04. Age (p = 0.01), open approach at index surgery, p = 0.03, adjuvant capecitabine (p = 0.01). and previous abdominal surgeries (p = 0.02) were associated with POI in the multivariate analysis. C-reactive-protein values on the 3rd (p = 0.02) and 5th (p < 0.01) postoperative day were also associated with POI.

CONCLUSIONS

PPS for patients who underwent ileostomy closure after low anterior resection for rectal cancer is feasible and might reduce POI.

Transanal Ileal Pouch: Is It Better?

Background: Restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) is the procedure of choice for patients with ulcerative colitis and select patients with Crohn's disease. Minimally invasive techniques have been increasingly adopted including the transanal approach. However there remains a dearth of comparative data assessing the technical advantages and outcomes of a transanal approach to the IPAA against other minimally invasive techniques. Methods: In this review, we describe our learned approach with the transanal IPAA (ta-IPAA) and highlight key technical steps for a successful surgery in addition to evaluating the current literature on surgical and functional outcomes of this relatively novel procedure. Results: The ta-IPAA affords better visualization and access during a pelvic dissection translating to lower conversion rates. Lower odds of postoperative morbidity have been reported, but there was no difference in severity of complications when present. Though this technique has the advantages of a more accurate rectal transection obviating the need for multiple staple firings, the risk of anastomotic leak was similar between the two groups. Functional outcomes were found to be overall similar, though data is limited. Conclusions: The technical aspects of the IPAA have continued to evolve to mitigate the challenges posed by a deep pelvic dissection. While the ta-IPAA has been shown to be a safe and feasible procedure, the true advantages and functional benefits of this technique have yet to be elucidated with large-scale, quality data.

Early postoperative outcomes of diverting loop ileostomy closure surgery following laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

Although diverting loop ileostomy (DLI) formation reduces the consequences of anastomotic leak and may also decrease the incidence of this severe complication, DLI closure can result in significant complications. The laparoscopic approach in colorectal surgery has numerous benefits, including reduced length of stay (LOS), less wound infection, and better cosmesis. The aim of this study was to determine whether a laparoscopic approach at the time of the ileostomy creation has a beneficial effect on the outcomes of ileostomy closure.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of an IRB-approved prospective database was performed for all patients who underwent DLI closure between 2010 and 2017. Patients' demographics, operative reports, and postoperative course were reviewed. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS software and included descriptive statistics, Chi-square for categorical variables, and Student's t tests for continuous variables. Skewed variables were compared using the non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test. Regression analysis for overall complications and LOS were preformed to further assess the impact of laparoscopy.

RESULTS

We identified 795 patients (363 females) who underwent DLI reversal surgery. The surgical approach in the index operation was laparoscopy in 65% of patients. Conversion to laparotomy at the ileostomy closure occurred in 6.1% of patients. The overall complication rate was lower and the LOS was shorter for patients who underwent DLI closure following laparoscopic surgery. Laparoscopy at the index operation was also associated with a lower incidence of postoperative ileus and a lower estimated blood loss (EBL) at the time of DLI reversal. Multivariate regression analysis found laparoscopy to have significant benefits compared to laparotomy for overall complications and for LOS.

CONCLUSION

Ileostomy closure following laparoscopic colorectal surgery offers benefits including reductions in LOS and overall complications.

The Impact of an Enhanced Recovery Program on Loop Ileostomy Closure

BACKGROUND

The implementation of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols has decreased the length of stay (LOS) and complications in colorectal procedures. However, little data has been published on the subset of patients undergoing loop ileostomy closure. We investigated the outcomes of loop ileostomy reversals prior to and after initiation of an ERAS protocol.

METHODS

Patients undergoing ileostomy reversal over a 5-year period by 4 colorectal surgeons were studied and divided into pre-ERAS patients and ERAS patients in a retrospective, case-control study. Patient demographics, comorbidities, LOS, underlying disease process, index intra-abdominal procedure, readmission rate, and complications were evaluated.

RESULTS

Overall, 208 patients were analyzed 149 pre-ERAS and 59 ERAS-with median LOS significantly lower in the ERAS group than the pre-ERAS group (50.8 hours vs. 96.1 hours, P < .0001). In subgroup analysis, the LOS was significantly lower if the index procedure performed was laparoscopic when comparing ERAS to pre-ERAS (49.9 hours vs. 96.6 hours, P < .001). ERAS did not confer a significant decrease in the LOS during ileostomy reversal with open index procedures (72.9 hours vs. 95.5 hours, P = .05).

CONCLUSION

Utilizing an ERAS protocol is safe and effective for loop ileostomy closure with a shorter LOS and no difference in complication rates or 30-day readmission rates.

Clinical prospects for laparoscopic stoma closure of a temporary loop ileostomy: Initial experience and report

INTRODUCTION

In closure of a stoma, the small working space and adhesions hinder a precise surgical procedure, compared with conventional approaches to digestive surgery. The aim of this prospective study was to introduce a new technique of laparoscopic stoma closure (LASC).

MATERIALS AND SURGICAL TECHNIQUES

After starting with three trocars, it is a priority to dissect around the arising ileum; a linear stapler is precisely inserted in both orifices of the loop stoma and applied two times, extracorporeally. Ultimately, both the oral and anal sides of the loop ileum are cut and closed using a linear cutter stapler in a delta-shaped manner just under the abdominal wall, intracorporeally. Eventually, the arising stoma is removed using an intra-abdominal and cutaneous approach.

DISCUSSION

LASC for patients with a temporary loop ileostomy is safe and feasible. More data and experience will be required to verify the benefits of this new technique.

Loop ileostomy closure: a retrospective comparison of three techniques

BACKGROUND

Loop ileostomy (LI) formation is a common practice for patients undergoing low anterior resection or restorative ileo-anal pouch surgery. Ileostomy closure can be performed using a stapled or hand-sewn technique, with or without resection. If hand-sewn, the closure can be one or two layers. Randomized controlled trials have not demonstrated one technique to be superior, and meta-analyses are limited by the heterogeneity of published studies. Our primary aim is to compare stapled ileostomy closure with single- and two-layer hand-sewn closures.

METHODS

This retrospective, single-centre cohort study included patients undergoing LI closure between January 1999 and April 2016. Patient demographics, anastomotic technique, operative time and patient outcomes were collected.

RESULTS

Our analysis included 244 patients (median age 67 years, 43.4% female). There were no significant differences in mean operative times (71.5, 73.1 and 88.5 min, for stapled, single- and two-layer hand-sewn closures, respectively, adjusted overall P = 0.262), or morbidity (21.5% versus 20.4% versus 17.6%, adjusted overall P = 0.934) between stapled or hand-sewn anastomoses, and no mortality. Once adjusting for age, sex, American College of Anaesthesiology grade, and consultant surgeon, the length of stay was different (overall P = 0.034), being similar between stapled and single-layer closures (4.2 versus 5.5 days, P = 0.105), but significantly different between stapled and two-layer closures (4.2 versus 8.3 days, P = 0.026).

CONCLUSION

Stapled and single-layered hand-sewn closures are similar in length of procedure, length of stay and complication rates. A two-layer, hand-sewn technique is associated with a significant increase in stay compared to a stapled ileostomy closure.

Prediction model and web-based risk calculator for postoperative ileus after loop ileostomy closure

Background

Postoperative ileus (POI) is a significant complication after loop ileostomy closure given both its frequency and impact on the patient. The purpose of this study was to develop and externally validate a prediction model for POI after loop ileostomy closure.

Methods

The model was developed and validated according to the TRIPOD checklist for prediction model development and validation. The development cohort included consecutive patients who underwent loop ileostomy closure in two teaching hospitals in Montreal, Canada. Candidate variables considered for inclusion in the model were chosen a priori based on subject knowledge. The final prediction model, which modelled the 30-day cumulative incidence of POI using logistic regression, was selected using the highest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) criterion. Model calibration was assessed using the Hosmer–Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test. The model was then validated externally in an independent cohort of similar patients from the University of British Columbia.

Results

The development cohort included 531 patients, in whom the incidence of POI was 16·8 per cent. The final model included five variables: age, ASA fitness grade, underlying pathology/treatment, interval between ileostomy creation and closure, and duration of surgery for ileostomy closure (AUC 0·68, 95 per cent c.i. 0·61 to 0·74). The model demonstrated good calibration (P = 0·142). The validation cohort consisted of 216 patients, and the incidence of POI was 15·7 per cent. On external validation, the model maintained good discrimination (AUC 0·72, 0·63 to 0·81) and calibration (P = 0·538).

Conclusion

A prediction model was developed for POI after loop ileostomy closure and included five variables. The model maintained good performance on external validation.

Incidence and predictors of postoperative ileus after loop ileostomy closure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Postoperative ileus (POI) is regarded as the most clinically significant morbidity following loop ileostomy closure; however, its incidence remains poorly understood. Our objective was therefore to determine the pooled incidence of POI after loop ileostomy closure and identify risk factors associated with its development.

METHODS

We systematically searched MEDLINE (via Ovid and PubMed), Embase, the Cochrane Library, Biosis Previews, and Scopus to identify studies reporting the incidence of POI in patients who underwent loop ileostomy closure. Two independent reviewers extracted data and appraised study quality. Cumulative incidence proportions were pooled across studies using a random-effects meta-analytic model.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven studies, including 9528 patients, met our inclusion criteria. The pooled estimate of POI was 8.0% (95% CI 6.9-9.3%; I² = 74%). The estimated incidence varied by POI definition: studies with a robust definition of POI (n = 8) demonstrated the highest estimate of POI (12.4%, 95% CI 9.2-16.5%; I² = 79%) while studies that did not report an explicit POI definition (n = 38) demonstrated the lowest estimate (6.7%, 95% CI 5.3-8.3%; I² = 61%). Small bowel anastomosis technique (hand-sewn) and interval time from ileostomy creation to closure (longer time) were the factors most commonly associated with POI after loop ileostomy closure. However, most comparative studies were not powered to examine risk factors for POI.

CONCLUSIONS

POI is an important complication after loop ileostomy closure, and its incidence is dependent on its definition. More research aimed at studying this complication is required to better understand risk factors for POI after loop ileostomy closure.

Laparoscopic loop ileostomy reversal with intracorporeal anastomosis is associated with shorter length of stay without increased direct cost

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic ileostomy closure with intracorporeal anastomosis offers potential advantages over open reversal with extracorporeal anastomosis, including earlier return of bowel function and reduced postoperative pain. In this study, we aim to compare the outcome and cost of laparoscopic ileostomy reversal (utilizing either intracorporeal or extracorporeal anastomosis) with open ileostomy reversal.

METHODS

A retrospective review of sequential patients undergoing elective loop ileostomy reversal between 2013 and 2016 at a single, high-volume institution was performed. Patients were stratified on the basis of operative approach: open reversal, laparoscopic-assisted reversal with extracorporeal anastomosis (LE), and laparoscopic reversal with intracorporeal anastomosis (LI). Linear and logistic regressions were utilized to perform multivariate analysis and determine risk-adjusted outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 132 sequential cases of loop ileostomy reversal, 50 (38%) underwent open, 49 (37%) underwent LE, and 33 (22%) underwent LI. Demographic data and preoperative comorbidities were similar between the three cohorts. Median length of stay was significantly shorter for LI (52.1 h, p < 0.05) compared to open (69.0 h) and LE (69.6 h). After risk-adjusted analysis, length of stay was significant shorter in LI compared to LE (GM 0.78, 95% CI 0.64-0.93, p < 0.01) and open reversal (GM 0.78, 95% CI 0.66-0.93, p < 0.01). Risk-adjusted 30-day morbidity rates were similar for LI compared to LE (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.081-2.33, p = 0.33) and open reversal (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.09-3.125, p = 0.48). Median in-hospital direct cost was similar for LI ($6575.00), LE ($6722.50), and open reversal ($6181.00).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic ileostomy reversal with intracorporeal anastomosis was associated with shorter length of stay without increased overall direct cost. The technique of laparoscopic ileostomy reversal warrants continued study in a randomized clinical trial.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Restorative Proctocolectomy for Familial Adenomatous Polyposis

PURPOSE

This study compared outcomes after laparoscopic (LAP) or conventional (open) total proctocolectomy with outcomes after ileal J-pouch anal anastomosis (IPAA) at a single institution.

METHODS

Charts from 133 familial adenomatous polyposis patients (1997-2013) were reviewed. Demographic data (age, sex, color, American Society of Anesthesiologists [ASA] status, previous surgery, and body mass index) and surgical outcomes (length of stay, early and late morbidity, reoperation, and mortality rates) were compared among 63 patients undergoing IPAA.

RESULTS

Demographic features were similar among patients (25 open and 38 LAP). Conversely, colorectal cancer at diagnosis prevailed in the open group (60% versus 31.6%; P = .02). Tumor stages (P = .65) and previous surgery index (20% versus 10.5%; P = .46) were similar. Surgical length was longer for LAP (374 versus 281 minutes, P = .003). Short-term complication rates (28% versus 28.9%), hospital stay (10.9 versus 8.9 days), and total long-term reoperations (28% versus 21%) were not statistically different. However, major late morbidity (16% versus 2.6%; P < .001) and late reoperation rates (16% versus 5.2%; P < .05) were greater among open patients. Both groups did not differ regarding pouch failure rates (8% versus 5.2%). There was no operative mortality in the present series.

CONCLUSIONS

(1) LAP IPAA is a safe procedure associated with a low conversion rate, (2) short-term results showed no clear advantages for both approaches, and (3) a greater risk of major late complications and late reoperations should be expected after open procedures.

Study protocol evaluating the use of bowel stimulation before loop ileostomy closure to reduce postoperative ileus: a multicenter randomized controlled trial

AIM

Postoperative ileus is the most commonly observed morbidity following ileostomy closure. Studies have demonstrated that the defunctionalized bowel of a loop ileostomy undergoes a series of functional and structural changes, such as atrophy of the intestinal villi and muscular layers, which may contribute to ileus. A single-centre study in Spain demonstrated that preoperative bowel stimulation via the distal limb of the loop ileostomy decreased postoperative ileus, length of stay and time to gastrointestinal function.

METHOD

A multicentre randomized controlled trial involving patients from Canadian institutions was designed to evaluate the effect of preoperative bowel stimulation before ileostomy closure on postoperative ileus. Stimulation will include canalizing the distal limb of the ileostomy loop with an 18Fr Foley catheter and infusing it with a solution of 500 ml of normal saline mixed with 30 g of a thickening agent (Nestle^© Thicken-Up^© ). This will be performed 10 times over the 3 weeks before ileostomy closure in an outpatient clinic setting by a trained Enterostomal Therapy nurse. Surgeons and the treating surgical team will be blinded to their patient's group allocation. Data regarding patient demographics, and operative and postoperative variables, will be collected prospectively. Primary outcome will be postoperative ileus, defined as an intolerance to oral food in the absence of clinical or radiological signs of obstruction, that either requires nasogastric tube insertion or is associated with two of the following on or after post-operative day 3: nausea/vomiting; abdominal distension; and the absence of flatus. Secondary outcomes will include length of stay, time to tolerating a regular diet, time to first passage of flatus or stool and overall morbidity. A cost analysis will be performed to compare the costs of conventional care with conventional care plus preoperative stimulation.

DISCUSSION

This manuscript discusses the potential benefits of preoperative bowel stimulation in improving postoperative outcomes and outlines our protocol for the first multicenter study to evaluate preoperative bowel stimulation before ileostomy closure. The results of this study could have considerable implications for the care of patients undergoing ileostomy closure.

Considering Value in Rectal Cancer Surgery: An Analysis of Costs and Outcomes Based on the Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Approach for Proctectomy

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to compare value (outcomes/costs) of proctectomy in patients with rectal cancer by 3 approaches: open, laparoscopic, and robotic.

BACKGROUND

The role of minimally invasive proctectomy in rectal cancer is controversial. In the era of value-based medicine, costs must be considered along with outcomes.

METHODS

Primary rectal cancer patients undergoing curative intent proctectomy at our institution between 2010 and 2014 were included. Patients were grouped by approach [open surgery, laparoscopic surgery, and robotic surgery (RS)] on an intent-to-treat basis. Groups were compared by direct costs of hospitalization for the primary resection, 30-day readmissions, and ileostomy closure and for short-term outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 488 patients were evaluated; 327 were men (67%), median age was 59 (27-93) years, and restorative procedures were performed in 333 (68.2%). Groups were similar in demographics, tumor characteristics, and treatment details. Significant outcome differences between groups were found in operative and anesthesia times (longer in the RS group), and in estimated blood loss, intraoperative transfusion, length of stay, and postoperative complications (all higher in the open surgery group). No significant differences were found in short-term oncologic outcomes. Direct cost of the hospitalization for primary resection and total direct cost (including readmission/ileostomy closure hospitalizations) were significantly greater in the RS group.

CONCLUSIONS

The laparoscopic and open approaches to proctectomy in patients with rectal cancer provide similar value. If robotic proctectomy is to be widely applied in the future, the costs of the procedure must be reduced.

Impact of prior abdominal surgery on postoperative prolonged ileus after ileostomy repair

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Postoperative ileus (POI) is one of the most common reasons for sustained hospital stays after ileostomy repair. Although many factors have been investigated as POI risk factors, the investigation of the impact of prior abdominal surgery (PAS) before rectal cancer surgery has been limited. This study aimed to identify the impact of PAS as a risk factor for POI after ileostomy repair.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 220 consecutive patients with rectal cancer who underwent ileostomy repair were enrolled. The patients were divided into PAS-positive and PAS-negative groups according to the history of PAS before rectal cancer surgery. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify the clinicopathological factors associated with POI.

RESULTS

The PAS-positive group had a longer operation time (111 min vs. 93.4 min, p=0.029) and a greater length of hospital stay (10 days vs. 7.8 days, p=0.003) compared with the PAS-negative group. POI was more frequent in the PAS-positive group (23.1% vs. 6.2%, p=0.011). The POI rate in the entire cohort was 8.1%. The repair method (stapled side-to-side vs. hand-sewn end-to-end, odds ratio OR=3.6, 95% confidence interval CI=1.2-11.1, p=0.022) and PAS (odds ratio=4.0, 95% confidence interval=1.2-12.8, p=0.017) were significant predictors of POI in the multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that PAS before rectal cancer surgery is associated with POI after ileostomy repair.

Morbidity and Risk Factors of Laparoscopic-Assisted Ileostomies in Children With Ulcerative Colitis

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic-assisted ileostomy (LAI) represents a cornerstone for the staged approach to ulcerative colitis (UC). The aim is to determine stoma morbidity in a series of pediatric patients and possibly identify specific risk factors.

METHODS

All of the patients who underwent LAI for UC between January 2008 and December 2014 were included. The following data were collected: patient demographics, preoperative medical treatment, body mass index (BMI) at surgery, Pediatric UC Index (PUCAI), and stoma-related complications. In this series of patients, a staged approach has been adopted (subtotal colectomy + ileostomy; restorative proctocolectomy with J-pouch ileo-rectal anastomosis + ileostomy; ileostomy closure).

RESULTS

Seventy-two LAIs were fashioned in 37 pediatric patients with UC. Median age at surgery was 12 years (range 5-14.8 years). Boy to girl ratio was 0.85:1. Mortality was zero. Complications occurred after 8 procedures after a median of 31 days postoperatively (range 8-60 days). Those were significantly more frequent in the case of BMI-z score >-0.51 (deleted in revised manuscript, ie, relatively overweight patients) and in the case of preoperative azathioprine administration. Pediatric UC Index score, sex, number of preoperative medications, and other preoperative parameters did not correlate with the incidence of complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests to keep a prudent behavior in the case of patients with a BMI-z score >-0.51 and received preoperative azathioprine administration. Parents should be adequately acknowledged on this regard.

Morbidity of loop ileostomy closure after restorative proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis and familial adenomatous polyposis: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Temporary loop ileostomy is a routine procedure to reduce the morbidity of restorative proctocolectomy. However, morbidity of ileostomy closure could reduce the benefit of this concept. The objective of this systematic review was to assess the risks of ileostomy closure after restorative proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis or familial adenomatous polyposis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Publications in English or German language reporting morbidity of ileostomy closure after restorative proctocolectomy were identified by Medline search. Two hundred thirty-two publications were screened, 143 were assessed in full-text, and finally 26 studies (reporting 2146 ileostomy closures) fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Weighted means for overall morbidity and mortality of ileostomy closure, rate of redo operations, anastomotic dehiscence, bowel obstruction, wound infection, and late complications were calculated.

RESULTS

Overall morbidity of ileostomy closure was 16.5 %, there was no mortality. Redo operations for complications were necessary in 3.0 %. Anastomotic dehiscence occurred in 2.0 %. Postoperative bowel obstruction developed in 7.6 %, with 2.9 % of patients requiring laparotomy for this complication. Wound infection rate was 4.0 %. Hernia or bowel obstruction as late complications developed in 1.9 and 9.4 %, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The considerable morbidity of ileostomy reversal reduces the overall benefit of temporary fecal diversion. However, ileostomy creation is still recommended, as it effectively reduces the risk of pouch-related septic complications.

The potential benefits and disadvantages of laparoscopic surgery for ulcerative colitis: A review of current evidence

Up to 35% of patients with ulcerative colitis will require surgery during the course of their disease. Nowadays, a total colectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis is the preferred procedure, which can be performed open or via laparoscopic approach. Since the early '90s, minimally invasive techniques have gained popularity, but the extend of restorative procedures in these patients has restricted the use of laparoscopic approaches mainly to elective procedures in specialised centres. This review discusses the benefits and disadvantages of laparoscopic surgery when compared to open surgery. It presents the current evidence on short-term and long-term post-operative results, functional outcome, fecundity, and costs, for both elective and emergency indications. In addition, the value of new techniques (including single port surgery) and alternative laparoscopic approaches (e.g. ileo-rectal anastomosis, Kock-pouch and appendectomy) will be discussed.