Who needs diverting ileostomy following laparoscopic low anterior resection in rectal cancer patients? Analysis of 417 patients in a single institute

What affects the selection of diverting ileostomy in rectal cancer surgery: a single-center retrospective study

BACKGROUND

The selection of diverting ileostomy (DI) is controversial. This study aimed to explore the factors affecting the selection of diverting ileostomy (DI) following laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer.

METHODS

This retrospective, case-control study included patients who underwent laparoscopic-assisted sphincter-saving surgery for mid-low rectal cancer from January 2019 to June 2021. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed on the patient's clinicopathological characteristics and pelvic dimensions measured by abdominopelvic electron beam computed tomography.

RESULTS

A total of 382 patients were included in the analysis, of which 182 patients (47.6%) did not undergo DI, and 200 patients (52.4%) underwent DI. The univariate analysis suggested that male sex (p = 0.003), preoperative radiotherapy (p < 0.001), patients with an anastomosis below the levator ani plane (p < 0.001), the intertuberous distance (p < 0.001), the sacrococcygeal distance (p = 0.025), the mid pelvis anteroposterior diameter (p = 0.009), and the interspinous distance (p < 0.001) were associated with performing DI. Multivariate analysis confirmed that preoperative radiotherapy (p = 0.037, odds ratio [OR] = 2.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.07-8.30), anastomosis below the levator ani plane (p < 0.001, OR = 7.09, 95% CI = 4.13-12.18), and the interspinous distance (p = 0.047, OR = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.93-1.00) were independently associated with performing DI.

CONCLUSION

Pelvic parameters also influence the choice of DI. According to this single-center experience, patients with a shorter interspinous distance, particularly narrow pelvic with an interspinous distance of < 94.8 mm, preoperative radiotherapy, and anastomosis below the levator ani plane, prefer to have a DI and should be adequately prepared by the physician.

The effect of reinforcing sutures and trans-anal drainage tube on the outcome of laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer: propensity score‑matched analysis

OBJECTIVES

Laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer is currently the predominant treatment modality for rectal tumors, with an ongoing focus on reducing the incidence of postoperative complications. In an effort to decrease the occurrence of anastomotic leakage, two additional steps worth considering are reinforcing the anastomosis with a barbed suture and retaining an anal drain as part of the procedure. The results of the operation were analyzed by comparing them to cases where the anastomosis was performed with a stapler alone.

METHODS

This study retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent laparoscopic radical rectal cancer surgery between July 2020 and March 2023. The patients were categorized into three cohorts based on the postoperative management following instrumented anastomosis: cohort A, the instrumented anastomosis alone group; cohort B, the reinforced suture group; and cohort C, the reinforced suture and indwelling transanal drainage tube group. Propensity score matching was performed twice in a 1:1 ratio, comparing cohort B to cohort A and cohort C to cohort B. The objective was to compare the benefits and drawbacks among the different groups in terms of operative time, postoperative outcomes and operative costs.

RESULTS

529 patients with laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer were eligible for inclusion. the instrumented anastomosis alone group, reinforced suture group and the reinforced suture and indwelling transanal drainage tube group were performed in 205 patients, 198 patients and 126 patients, respectively. Cohort A and Cohort B differed in three variables after PSM: total operative time (p = 0.018), postoperative hospital stay (p < 0.001) and incidence of anastomotic leakage (p = 0.038). Cohort B had a longer total operative time, shorter postoperative hospital stay and a lower incidence of anastomotic leakage. Similarly, cohort C had less postoperative drainage (P = 0.01) and a longer postoperative hospital stay (P = 0.003) when cohort B and cohort C were matched for propensity scores. There was no significant difference in the cost of surgery between the three cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

The incorporation of barbed suture reinforcement significantly reduces the occurrence of postoperative anastomotic leakage in rectal cancer surgeries. On the other hand, although trans-anal drainage was used as an additional measure to the reinforcement suture of the anastomosis, the utilization of trans-anal drainage tubes does not demonstrate a significant improvement in surgical outcomes.

Artificial intelligence assists surgeons' decision-making of temporary ileostomy in patients with rectal cancer who have received anterior resection

BACKGROUND

Due to the difficult evaluation of the risk of anastomotic leakage (AL) after rectal cancer resection, the decision to perform a temporary ileostomy is not easily distinguishable. The aim of the present study was to develop an artificial intelligence (AI) model for identifying the risk of AL to assist surgeons in the selective implementation of a temporary ileostomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The data from 2240 patients with rectal cancer who received anterior resection were collected, and these patients were divided into one training and two test cohorts. Five AI algorithms, such as support vector machine (SVM), logistic regression (LR), Naive Bayes (NB), stochastic gradient descent (SGD) and random forest (RF) were employed to develop predictive models using clinical variables and were assessed using the two test cohorts.

RESULTS

The SVM model indicated good discernment of AL, and might have increased the implementation of temporary ileostomy in patients with AL in the training cohort (p < 0.001). Following the assessment of the two test cohorts, the SVM model could identify AL in a favorable manner, which performed with positive predictive values of 0.150 (0.091-0.234) and 0.151 (0.091-0.237), and negative predictive values of 0.977 (0.958-0.988) and 0.986 (0.969-0.994), respectively. It is important to note that the implementation of temporary ileostomy in patients without AL would have been significantly reduced (p < 0.001) and which would have been significantly increased in patients with AL (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The model (https://alrisk.21cloudbox.com/) indicated good discernment of AL, which may be used to assist the surgeon's decision-making of performing temporary ileostomy.

Obstructive and secretory complications of diverting ileostomy

This review aimed to highlight the etiology, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of obstructive and secretory complications associated with diverting ileostomy (DI). Obstructive complications at the stoma site are termed stoma outlet obstruction (SOO) or stoma-related obstruction (SRO). The incidence of SOO/SRO is 5.4%-27.3%, and the risk factors are multifactorial; however, the configuration of the stoma limb and the thickness of the rectus abdominis muscle (RAM) may be of particular concern. Trans-stomal tube decompression is initially attempted with a success rate of 33%-86%. A thick RAM may carry the risk of recurrence. Surgical refinement, including a wider incision of the anterior sheath and adequate stoma limb length, avoids tension and immobility and may decrease SOO/SRO. Secretory complications of DI are termed high output stoma (HOS). Persistent HOS lead to water and sodium depletion, and secondary hyperaldosteronism, resulting in electrolyte imbalances, such as hypomagnesemia. The incidence of HOS is 14%-24%, with an output of 1000-2000 mL/d lasting up to three days. Treatment of HOS is commenced after excluding postoperative complications or enteritis and includes fluid intake restriction, antimotility and antisecretory drug therapies, and magnesium supplementation. Intensive monitoring and surveillance programs have been successful in decreasing readmissions for dehydration.

Short-term Outcomes of Laparoscopy-Assisted vs Open Surgery for Patients With Low Rectal Cancer: The LASRE Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

The efficacy of laparoscopic vs open surgery for patients with low rectal cancer has not been established.

Objective

To compare the short-term efficacy of laparoscopic surgery vs open surgery for treatment of low rectal cancer.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This multicenter, noninferiority randomized clinical trial was conducted in 22 tertiary hospitals across China. Patients scheduled for curative-intent resection of low rectal cancer were randomized at a 2:1 ratio to undergo laparoscopic or open surgery. Between November 2013 and June 2018, 1070 patients were randomized to laparoscopic (n = 712) or open (n = 358) surgery. The planned follow-up was 5 years. Data analysis was performed from April 2021 to March 2022.

Interventions

Eligible patients were randomized to receive either laparoscopic or open surgery.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The short-term outcomes included pathologic outcomes, surgical outcomes, postoperative recovery, and 30-day postoperative complications and mortality.

Results

A total of 1039 patients (685 in laparoscopic and 354 in open surgery) were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (median [range] age, 57 [20-75] years; 620 men [59.7%]; clinical TNM stage II/III disease in 659 patients). The rate of complete mesorectal excision was 85.3% (521 of 685) in the laparoscopic group vs 85.8% (266 of 354) in the open group (difference, -0.5%; 95% CI, -5.1% to 4.5%; P = .78). The rate of negative circumferential and distal resection margins was 98.2% (673 of 685) vs 99.7% (353 of 354) (difference, -1.5%; 95% CI, -2.8% to 0.0%; P = .09) and 99.4% (681 of 685) vs 100% (354 of 354) (difference, -0.6%; 95% CI, -1.5% to 0.5%; P = .36), respectively. The median number of retrieved lymph nodes was 13.0 vs 12.0 (difference, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.1-1.9; P = .39). The laparoscopic group had a higher rate of sphincter preservation (491 of 685 [71.7%] vs 230 of 354 [65.0%]; difference, 6.7%; 95% CI, 0.8%-12.8%; P = .03) and shorter duration of hospitalization (8.0 vs 9.0 days; difference, -1.0; 95% CI, -1.7 to -0.3; P = .008). There was no significant difference in postoperative complications rate between the 2 groups (89 of 685 [13.0%] vs 61 of 354 [17.2%]; difference, -4.2%; 95% CI, -9.1% to -0.3%; P = .07). No patient died within 30 days.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this randomized clinical trial of patients with low rectal cancer, laparoscopic surgery performed by experienced surgeons was shown to provide pathologic outcomes comparable to open surgery, with a higher sphincter preservation rate and favorable postoperative recovery.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01899547.

The risk factors of low anterior resection syndrome after colorectal cancer surgery: A retrospective study of 566 patients in a single institution in China

PURPOSE

This study aims to identify the independent risk factors in the low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) after surgery for colorectal cancer (CRC).

METHOD

This was a retrospective, single-institution study in the Second Affiliation Hospital of Dalian Medical University, China. Patients underwent sphincter-preserving low anterior resection with total or partial mesorectal resection (with or without protective ileostomy) and completed a self-filled questionnaire over the phone to assess postoperative bowel dysfunction from January 2017 to December 2019. The predictors of LAR were evaluated using univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULT

The study population was 566 patients, 264 (46.64%), 224 (39.58%), and 78 (13.78%) patients with no, minor, and major LARS, respectively. In the univariate analysis, independent factors such as tumor location and size, anastomotic height, protective ileostomy, post-operation chemoradiotherapy, tumor T stage, lymphatic nodal metastasis classification, surgery duration, and time interval for closure of stoma were significantly associated with LARS points while we found the tumor T stage and lymphatic nodal metastasis classification as the new independent risk factors compared with the last decade studies. In the multivariate analysis, factors such as low and middle tumor location and protective ileostomy, and post operation treatment, nodal metastasis classification were the independent risk factors for major LARS.

CONCLUSION

The new independence risk factors were tumor T stage and lymphatic nodal metastasis status in univariate analysis in our study, with anastomotic height, low and middle tumor location, protective ileostomy, post-operation chemoradiotherapy, nodal metastasis status increasing LARS point in multivariate analysis after surgery for CRC.

Trans-Anastomotic Drainage Tube Placement After Hand-Sewn Anastomosis in Patients Undergoing Intersphincteric Resection for Low Rectal Cancer: An Alternative Drainage Method

Anastomotic leakage (AL) is a common complication after intersphincteric resection (ISR). It significantly reduces quality of life and causes great distress to patients. Although traditional drainage (e.g., anal and pelvic catheters) may reduce the impact of AL to some extent, their role in reducing the incidence of AL remains controversial. In this study, we developed a novel drainage technique involving the placement of drainage tubes through the gap between sutures during handsewn anastomosis, to reduce the occurrence of anastomotic leakage. We retrospectively analyzed 34 consecutive patients who underwent intersphincteric resection requiring handsewn anastomosis between February 1, 2017, and January 1, 2021. Patients were classified into the trans-anastomotic drainage tube group (TADT, n = 14) and the non-TADT group (n = 20) based on whether trans-anastomotic tube placement was performed. The incidence of postoperative complications, such as AL, was compared between the two groups, and anal function of patients at 1-year post-ISR was evaluated. Six cases of AL occurred in the non-TADT group, while none occurred in the TADT group; this difference was statistically significant (p=0.031). The TADT group also had a shorter hospital stay (p=0.007). There were no other significant intergroup differences in operation time, blood loss, pain score, anastomotic stenosis, intestinal obstruction, or incidence of wound infection. In the 30 patients (88.2%) evaluated for anal function, there were no significant intergroup differences in stool frequency, urgency, daytime/nocturnal soiling, Wexner incontinence score, or Kirwan grading. Taken together, trans-anastomotic tube placement is a novel drainage method that may reduce AL after ISR requiring handsewn anastomosis and without adversely affecting anal function.

Effects of Neoadjuvant Radiotherapy on Postoperative Complications in Rectal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Objective

Neoadjuvant radiotherapy (nRT) is an important treatment approach for rectal cancer. The relationship, however, between nRT and postoperative complications is still controversial. Here, we conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate such concerns.

Methods

The electronic literature from 1983 to 2021 was searched in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. Postoperative complications after nRT were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled odds ratio (OR) was calculated by the random-effects model. Statistical analysis was conducted by Review Manager 5.3 and STATA 14.

Results

A total of 23,723 patients from 49 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled results showed that nRT increased the risk of anastomotic leakage (AL) compared to upfront surgery (OR = 1.23; 95% CI, 1.07-1.41; p=0.004). Subgroup analysis suggested that both long-course (OR = 1.20, 95% CI 1.03-1.40; p=0.02) and short-course radiotherapy (OR = 1.25, 95% CI, 1.02-1.53; p=0.04) increased the incidence of AL. In addition, nRT was the main risk factor for wound infection and pelvic abscess. The pooled data in randomized controlled trials, however, indicated that nRT was not associated with AL (OR = 1.01; 95% CI 0.82-1.26; p=0.91).

Conclusions

nRT may increase the risk of AL, wound infection, and pelvic abscess compared to upfront surgery among patients with rectal cancer.

Retrospective study of active drainage in the management of anastomotic leakage after anterior resection for rectal cancer

Objective

Anastomotic leakage (AL) is the most serious postoperative complication following anterior resection for rectal cancer. We aimed to investigate the efficacy of active drainage for the management of AL.

Methods

This was a retrospective study using information from a database of patients who underwent colorectal resection without a defunctioning ileostomy at our center between September 2013 and January 2021. We identified 122 cases with definitive AL who did not require revision emergent laparotomy. Among these patients, we evaluated those who received active drainage to replace the original passive drainage.

Results

There were 62 cases in the active drainage group and 60 cases in the passive drainage group. The active drainage group had a shorter mean AL spontaneous resolution time (26.9 ± 3.3 vs. 32.2 ± 4.8 days) and lower average hospitalization costs (82,680.6 vs. 92,299.3 renminbi (RMB)) compared with the passive drainage group, respectively. Moreover, seven patients in the passive drainage group subsequently underwent diverting stoma to resolve the Al, while all ALs resolved spontaneously after replacing the passive drainage with active drainage.

Conclusions

Our study suggests that active drainage may accelerate the spontaneous resolution of AL.

The efficacy of ileostomy after laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: a meta-analysis

Background

Protective ileostomy is always applied to avoid clinically significant anastomotic leakage and other postoperative complications for patients receiving laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. However, whether it is necessary to perform the ileostomy is still controversial. This meta-analysis aims to analyze the efficacy of ileostomy on laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery.

Methods

Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science, and PubMed were applied for systematic search of all relevant literature, updated to May 07, 2021. Studies compared patients with and without ileostomy for laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. We applied Review Manager software to perform this meta-analysis. The quality of the non-randomized controlled trials was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS), and the randomized studies were assessed using the Jadad scale.

Results

We collected a total of 1203 references, and seven studies were included using the research methods. The clinically significant anastomotic leakage rate was significantly lower in ileostomy group (27/567, 4.76%) than that in non-ileostomy group (54/525, 10.29%) (RR = 0.47, 95% CI 0.30–0.73, P for overall effect = 0.0009, P for heterogeneity = 0.18, I² = 32%). However, the postoperative hospital stay, reoperation, wound infection, and operation time showed no significant difference between the ileostomy and non-ileostomy groups.

Conclusion

The results demonstrated that protective ileostomy could decrease the clinically significant anastomotic leakage rate for patients undergoing laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. However, ileostomy has no effect on postoperative hospital stay, reoperation, wound infection, and operation time. The efficacy of ileostomy after laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: a meta-analysis.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12957-021-02432-x.

Time interval between rectal cancer resection and reintervention for anastomotic leakage and the impact of a defunctioning stoma: A Dutch population-based study

AIM

In the Netherlands, a selective policy of faecal diversion after rectal cancer surgery is generally applied. This study aimed to evaluate the timing, type, and short-term outcomes of reoperation for anastomotic leakage after primary rectal cancer resection stratified for a defunctioning stoma.

METHOD

Data of all patients who underwent primary rectal cancer surgery with primary anastomosis from 2013-2019 were extracted from the Dutch ColoRectal Audit. Primary outcomes were new stoma construction, mortality, ICU admission, prolonged hospital stay, and readmission.

RESULTS

In total, 10,772 rectal cancer patients who underwent surgery with primary anastomosis were included, of whom 46.6% received a primary defunctioning stoma. The reintervention rate for anastomotic leakage was 8.2% and 11.6% for patients with and without a defunctioning stoma (p < 0.001). Reintervention consisted of reoperation in 44.0% and 85.3% (p < 0.001), with a median time interval from primary resection to reoperation of seven days (IQR 4-14) vs. five days (IQR 3-13), respectively. In the presence of a defunctioning stoma, early reoperation (<5 days; n = 47) was associated with significantly more end-colostomy construction (51% vs. 33%) and ICU admission (66% vs. 38%) than late reoperation (≥5 days; n = 127). Without defunctioning stoma, early reoperation (n = 252) was associated with significantly higher mortality (4% vs. 1%), and more ICU admissions (52% vs.34%) than late reoperation (n = 302).

CONCLUSIONS

Early reoperations after rectal cancer resection are associated with worse outcomes reflected by a more frequent ICU admission in general, more colostomy construction, and higher mortality in patients with primary defunctioned and nondefunctioned anastomosis.

Short-Term and Long-Term Outcomes in Mid and Low Rectal Cancer With Robotic Surgery

Objective

To investigate the risk factors for postoperative complications and anastomotic leakage after robotic surgery for mid and low rectal cancer and their influence on long-term outcomes.

Methods

A total of 641 patients who underwent radical mid and low rectal cancer robotic surgery at Zhongshan Hospital Fudan University from January 2014 to December 2018 were enrolled in this study. The clinicopathological factors of the patients were collected. The risk factors for short-term outcomes of complications and anastomotic leakage were analyzed, and their influences on recurrence and overall survival were studied.

Results

Of the 641 patients, 516 (80.5%) underwent AR or LAR procedures, while 125 (19.5%) underwent the NOSES procedure. Only fifteen (2.3%) patients had stoma diversion. One hundred and seventeen patients (17.6%) experienced surgical complications. Anastomotic leakage occurred in 44 patients (6.9%). Eleven patients (1.7%) underwent reoperation within 90 days after surgery. Preoperative radiotherapy did not significantly increase anastomotic leakage in our study (7.4% vs. 6.8%, P = 0.869). The mean postoperative hospital stay was much longer with complication (10.4 vs. 7.1 days, P<0.05) and leakage (12.9 vs. 7.4 days, P < 0.05). Multivariate analysis showed that male sex (OR = 1.855, 95% CI: 1.175–2.923, P < 0.05), tumor distance 5 cm from the anus (OR = 1.563, 95% CI: 1.016–2.404, P < 0.05), and operation time length (OR = 1.563, 95% CI: 1.009–2.421, P < 0.05) were independent risk factors for complications in mid and low rectal cancer patients. The same results for anastomotic leakage: male sex (OR = 2.247, 95% CI: 1.126–4.902, P < 0.05), tumor distance 5 cm from the anus (OR = 2.242, 95% CI: 1.197–4.202, P < 0.05), and operation time length (OR = 2.114, 95% CI: 1.127–3.968, P < 0.05). The 3-year DFS and OS were 82.4% and 92.6% with complication, 88.4% and 94.0% without complication, 88.6% and 93.1% with leakage, and 87.0% and 93.8% without leakage, respectively. The complication and anastomotic leakage showed no significant influences on long-term outcomes.

Conclusion

Being male, having a lower tumor location, and having a prolonged operation time were independent risk factors for complications and anastomotic leakage in mid and low rectal cancer. Complications and anastomotic leakage might have no long-term impact on oncological outcomes for mid and low rectal cancer with robotic surgery.

Early versus late closure of temporary ileostomy after rectal cancer surgery: a meta-analysis

The complications caused by early closure (EC) or late closure (LC) after temporary ileostomy in rectal cancer patients have not been compared systematically. We conducted this meta-analysis to explore the details surrounding this issue, based on a search of PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Web of Science, Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Embase, and Google Scholar. The comparative indices included total complications, severe complications, and various individual complications before or after closure. Four randomized-controlled trials (RCTs), including the EASY trial, were analyzed, involving a collective total of 324 patients. EC tended to result in more postoperative complications than LC for rectal cancer patients with temporary ileostomy. This difference was mainly embodied in wound complications. Nevertheless, LC resulted in more complications than EC before closure, such as leakage outside the appliance bag and skin irritation. There was no obvious difference in severe postoperative complications or medical complications. With fewer overall and wound-related complications, LC tended to be more suitable than EC for rectal cancer patients with a temporary ileostomy; however, the complications before closure should also be considered.

One-stitch versus traditional method of protective loop ileostomy in laparoscopic low anterior rectal resection: A retrospective comparative study

BACKGROUND

Protective loop ileostomy is widely performed during rectal resection surgery. The study aimed to introduce the one-stitch method (OM) of protective loop ileostomy in laparoscopic low anterior resection and compare this new method with the traditional method (TM).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted on 109 patients with pathologically diagnosed adenocarcinoma of the rectum from January 2017 to December 2018 in the study centre, and the intraoperative details and postoperative outcomes of the two groups were measured.

RESULTS

A total of 95 patients were included: 54 underwent protective loop ileostomy with the TM, while 41 underwent surgery utilizing the OM. Univariate analysis demonstrated that the operative times of resection and closure were significantly shorter (resection, 200.0 vs. 227.5 min, P = 0.028; closure, 70.0 vs. 92.5 min, P = 0.018) and the peristomal adhesions during closure were milder (P = 0.007) in the OM group than in the TM group. The postoperative complications were similar in both groups. In multivariate analysis, the OM (OR 0.352, 95% CI = 0.155-0.799, P = 0.013) was a significant factor influencing the operative time of resection. The peristomal adhesion extent was the only independent risk factor for the stoma closure time (mild, OR 0.036, 95% CI = 0.010-0.129, P < 0.001; moderate, OR 0.128, 95% CI = 0.033-0.494, P = 0.003). No significant predictive factor of peristomal adhesion extent was identified in multivariable analysis.

CONCLUSION

The OM of protective loop ileostomy in laparoscopic low anterior resection was time-saving, simple and easy to popularize and did not lead to more postoperative complications than the TM.