Early vs. standard reversal ileostomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

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.

Outcomes of Early Versus Standard Closure of Diverting Ileostomy After Proctectomy: Meta-analysis and Meta-regression Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to compare outcomes of early and standard closure of diverting loop ileostomy (DLI) after proctectomy and determine risk factors for anastomotic leak (AL) and complications.

BACKGROUND

Formation of DLI has been a routine practice after proctectomy to decrease the incidence and potential adverse sequela of AL.

METHODS

PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared outcomes of early versus standard closure of DLI after proctectomy. Main outcome measures were postoperative complications, AL, ileus, surgical site infection, reoperation, readmission, and hospital stay following DLI closure.

RESULTS

Eleven RCTs (932 patients; 57% male) were included. Early closure group included 474 patients and standard closure 458 patients. Early closure was associated with higher odds of AL [odds ratio (OR): 2.315, P =0.013] and similar odds of complications (OR: 1.103, P =0.667), ileus (OR: 1.307, P =0.438), surgical site infection (OR: 1.668, P =0.079), reoperation (OR: 1.896, P =0.062), and readmission (OR: 3.431, P =0.206). Hospital stay was similar (weighted mean difference: 1.054, P =0.237). Early closure had higher odds of AL than standard closure when early closure was done ≤2 weeks (OR: 2.12, P =0.047) but not within 3 to 4 weeks (OR: 2.98, P =0.107). Factors significantly associated with complications after early closure were diabetes mellitus, smoking, and closure of DLI ≤2 weeks, whereas factors associated with AL were ≥ American Society of Anesthesiologists II classification and diabetes mellitus.

CONCLUSIONS

Early closure of DLI after proctectomy has a higher risk of AL, particularly within 2 weeks of DLI formation. On the basis of this study, routine early ileostomy closure cannot be recommended.

Clinical Outcomes of Ileostomy Closure during versus after Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Patients with Rectal Cancer

Background

Protective ileostomy can effectively prevent severe anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer surgery; however, the optimal timing for ileostomy closure during adjuvant chemotherapy remains unclear. This study aimed to explore the safety and long-term outcomes of early ileostomy closure during adjuvant chemotherapy.

Method

Patients who underwent laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery combined with protective ileostomy and adjuvant chemotherapy between April 2017 and April 2021 were retrospectively evaluated. Patients were divided into an early closure group during chemotherapy (group A) and a late closure group after chemotherapy (group B).

Results

A total of 215 patients were included in this study, with 115 in group A and 100 in group B. There were no significant differences in demographic and clinical characteristics between the two groups. In group A, durations of stoma status (p < 0.001) and low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) (p < 0.001) were shorter, and rectal stenosis (p=0.036) and stoma-related complications (p=0.007), especially stoma stenosis (p=0.041), were less common. However, compliance with chemotherapy was worse (p=0.009). There were no significant differences in operative time, postoperative hospital stay, postoperative complications, incidence and severity of LARS, disease-free survival, or overall survival between groups.

Conclusion

Early ileostomy closure can effectively reduce the duration of stoma status, duration of LARS, rectal stenosis, and stoma-related complications while not affecting surgical complications and oncological outcomes. Ileostomy closure should not be delayed because of adjuvant chemotherapy. However, follow-up should be strengthened to increase compliance and integrity with chemotherapy.

Early diverting stoma closure is feasible and safe: results from a before-and-after study on the implementation of an early closure protocol at a tertiary referral center

BACKGROUND

Evidence on early closure (EC) of defunctioning stoma (DS) after colorectal surgery shows a favorable effect when patients are carefully selected. Therefore, a clinical pathway adapted to the implementation of an EC strategy was developed in our center. The aim of this study was to carry out a comparative analysis of time until DS closure and DS-related morbidity before and after the implementation of an EC protocol (ECP).

METHODS

This study is a before-and-after comparative analysis. Patients were divided into two cohorts according to the observational period: patients from the period before the ECP implementation (January 2015-December 2019) [Period 1] and those from the period after that (January 2020-December 2022) [Period 2]. All consecutive patients subjected to elective DS closure within both periods were eligible. Early closure was defined as the reversal within 30 days from DS creation. Patients excluded from EC or those not closed within 30 days since primary surgery were analyzed as late closure (LC). Baseline characteristics and DS-related morbidity were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 145 patients were analyzed. Median time with DS was shorter in patients after ECP implementation [42 (21-193) days versus 233 (137-382) days, p < 0.001]. This reduction in time to closure did not impact the DS closure morbidity and resulted in less DS morbidity (68.8% versus 49.2%, p = 0.017) and fewer stoma nurse visits (p = 0.029).

CONCLUSIONS

The ECP was able to significantly reduce intervals to restoration of bowel continuity in patients with DS, which in turn resulted in a direct impact on the reduction of DS morbidity without negatively affecting DS closure morbidity.

ILEOSTIM trial: a study protocol to evaluate the effectiveness of efferent loop stimulation before ileostomy reversal

PURPOSE

A protective loop ileostomy is the most useful method to reduce sequelae in the event of an anastomotic leakage (AL) after rectal cancer surgery. However, it requires an additional stoma reversal surgery with its own potential complications. Postoperative ileus (POI) remains the most common complication after ileostomy reversal, which leads to an increase in morbidity, length of hospital stay (LOS) and overall healthcare costs. Several retrospective studies carried out in this field have concluded that there are insufficient evidence-based recommendations about the routine application of preoperative bowel stimulation in clinical practice. Here we discuss whether stimulation of the efferent limb before ileostomy reversal might reduce POI and improve postoperative outcomes.

METHODS

This is a multicentre randomised controlled trial to determine whether mechanical stimulation of the efferent limb during the 2 weeks before the ileostomy reversal would help to reduce the development of POI after surgery. This study was registered on Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05302557). Stimulation will consist of infusing a solution of 500 ml of saline chloride solution mixed with a thickening agent (Resource©, Nestlé Health Science; 6.4 g sachet) into the distal limb of the ileostomy loop. This will be performed within the 2 weeks before ileostomy reversal, in an outpatient clinic under the supervision of a trained stoma nurse.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study could provide some insights into the preoperative management of these patients.

Protective ileostomy after low anterior resection for extraperitoneal rectal cancer: does the reversal surgery timing affect closure failure?

Loop ileostomy is commonly performed after LAR with TME to temporarily protect the anastomosis. Usually, defunctioning stoma is closed after 1-6 months, although sometimes it becomes definitive de facto. The aim of this study is to investigate the long-term risk of no-reversal of protective ileostomy after LAR for middle-low rectal cancer and the predictive risk factors. A retrospective analysis of a consecutive cohort of patients who underwent curative LAR with covering ileostomy for extraperitoneal rectal cancer in two colorectal units was performed. A different policy for scheduling stoma closure was applied between centers. All the data were collected through an electronic database (Microsoft Excel®). Descriptive statistical analysis was performed using Fisher's exact and Student's t test. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was conducted. Two-hundred twenty-two patients were analysed: reversal procedure was carried out in 193 patients, in 29 cases stoma was never closed. The mean interval time from index surgery was 4.9 months (Center1: 3 vs. Center2: 7.8). At the univariate analysis, mean age and tumor stage were significantly higher in the "no-reversal" group. Unclosed ostomies were significantly lower in Center 1 than Center 2 (8% vs. 19.6%). At the multivariate analysis female gender, anastomotic leakage and Center 2 had significant higher risk of unclosed ileostomy. Currently, no clinical recommendations have been established and the policy of scheduling stoma reversal is variable. Our study suggests that an established protocol could avoid closure delay, decreasing permanent stomas. Consequently, ileostomy closure should be weighed as standardized step in cancer therapeutic pathway.