[Clinical results of loop ileostomy closures in rectal cancer surgical patients. Effect of chemotherapy in the waiting period]

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.

Contrast radiography before diverting stoma closure in rectal cancer is not necessary on a routine basis

INTRODUCTION

Diverting stomata are recommended in patients with low anterior resection and risk factors in order to reduce the severity of anastomotic leaks. Usually, a radiology study is performed prior to the closure of the stoma to detect subclinical leaks. The aim of the present study is to assess the clinical utility of the radiology study.

METHODS

A prospective cohort study of patients undergoing anterior rectal resection for rectal cancer and those who underwent stoma closure without contrast enema. This study was carried out after a retrospective review of radiology study results prior to the closure of the stoma in patients operated from 2007 to 2011.

RESULTS

Eighty-six patients met the study criteria. Thirteen patients (15.1%) presented pelvic sepsis. Contrast enema before stoma closure was pathological in 8 patients (9.3%). Five out of the 13 patients with pelvic sepsis had a pathological radiological study, compared to only 3 out of the 73 patients without intra-abdominal complications after rectal resection (38.5% vs. 4.1%; P=.001). Based on these results, we conducted a prospective study omitting the contrast enema in patients with no postoperative complications. Thirty-eight patients had their stoma closed without a prior radiology study. None of the patients presented pelvic sepsis.

CONCLUSIONS

Radiology studies of the colorectal anastomosis before reconstruction can safely be omitted in patients without pelvic sepsis after the previous rectal resection.

Ileostomy reversal with handsewn techniques. Short-term outcomes in a teaching hospital

INTRODUCTION

Fecal diversion is considered an effective procedure to protect bowel anastomosis at high risk for leak. Some concerns exist regarding the risk for a significant morbidity associated to ileostomy creation itself and moreover to its closure. Surgical expertise and closure techniques are considered potential factors influencing morbidity. Aim of the study is to present a single-institution experience with ileostomy closures, in a teaching hospital, whereas ileostomy reversal is mainly performed by young residents.

METHODS

A prospective database was investigated to extract data of patients who underwent loop ileostomy closure between January 2005 and December 2014. Ileostomy reversion was always realized in a handsewn fashion, performing either a direct closure (DC) or a resection plus end-to-end anastomosis (EEA). Postoperative morbidity was graded according to Clavien-Dindo classification. Outcomes after DC and EEA were compared by Fisher's exact test and Wilcoxon rank-sum test.

RESULTS

Two hundred ninety-eight patients were included. Ileostomy reversal was performed by EEA in 236 patients (79.19 %) and by DC in 62 patients (20.81 %). Surgery was performed with a peristomal access in 296 cases (99.33 %). Incidence of anastomotic leak was 0.67 % (2/298). Overall reoperation rate was 0.34 % (1/298). Short-term overall morbidity rate was 20.47 %; but major complications (≥ grade III) occurred in only one patient (0.34 %). Mortality was nil. No significant differences in postoperative morbidity were found between the DC and EEA group.

CONCLUSION

Loop ileostomy reversal is a safe procedure, associated to a low major morbidity and excellent results, even if performed with a handsewn technique by supervised trainee surgeons.

Comparing methods of ileostomy closure constructed in colorectal surgery in Turkey

INTRODUCTION

Stoma construction is a life saver method for emergent and elective operations in colorectal surgery. However, they are associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality.

AIM

To compare the operative findings, early postoperative complications, and costs of stapled and hand-sewn closures in loop ileostomies that are constructed in emergent and elective colorectal surgery.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The data of 68 patients requiring loop ileostomies during colorectal surgery were retrospectively evaluated. SPSS (version 20) was used for data analysis.

RESULTS

The study group consisted of 44 men and 24 women with a mean age of 55.5 years. The ileostomy closures were performed with hand-sewn method in 36 patients (group 1) and stapled method in 32 patients (group 2). The mean operation time was 75.4 min in group 1 and 46.7 min in group 2 (p < 0.001). Early postoperative complications were wound infection (8.8%), small bowel obstruction (6.06%), and anastomotic leakage (2.9%). Total costs, flatulence and faeces outlet time, oral feeding starting time, time of hospital stay, and early postoperative complications were lower in the stapled group.

CONCLUSIONS

Morbidity and mortality rates of stoma construction and its closure are still considerable. Lower anastomotic leakage rate, complication rate, and costs and shorter operative times in the stapled group make this method preferable.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials comparing purse-string vs conventional linear closure of the wound following ileostomy (stoma) closure

Objective: The objective of this article is to systematically analyse the randomized, controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of purse-string closure (PSC) of an ileostomy wound with conventional linear closure (CLC).

Methods: Randomized, controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of purse-string closure vs conventional linear closure (CLC) of ileostomy wound in patients undergoing ileostomy closure were analysed using RevMan®, and the combined outcomes were expressed as risk ratio (RR) and standardized mean difference (SMD).

Results: Three randomized, controlled trials, recruiting 206 patients, were retrieved from medical electronic databases. There were 105 patients in the PSC group and 101 patients in the CLC group. There was no heterogeneity among included trials. Duration of operation (SMD: −0.18; 95% CI: −0.45, 0.09; z = 1.28; P < 0.20) and length of hospital stay (SMD: 0.01; 95% CI: −0.26, 0.28; z = 0.07; P < 0.95) was statistically similar following both approaches of ileostomy wound closure. The risk of surgical site infection (OR, 0.10; 95% CI: 0.03, 0.33; z = 3.78; P < 0.0001) was significantly reduced when ileostomy wound was closed using PSC technique.

Conclusion: PSC technique for ileostomy wound is associated with a reduced risk of surgical site infection apparently without influencing the duration of operation and length of hospital stay.

Morbidity and mortality of temporary diverting ileostomies in rectal cancer surgery

INTRODUCTION

A temporary diverting ileostomy is frequently used to reduce the consequences of a distal anastomotic leakage after total mesorectal excision in rectal cancer surgery. This surgical technique is associated with high morbidity and a not negligible mortality. The aim of this study is to evaluate the morbidity and mortality rate associated with an ileostomy and its posterior closure.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Between 2001 and 2012, 96 patients with temporary diverting ileostomy were retrospectively analyzed. Morbidity and mortality were analyzed before and after the stoma closure. The studied variables included age, sex, comorbidities, time to bowel continuity restoration and adjuvant chemotherapy.

RESULTS

In 5 patients the stoma was permanent and another 5 died. The morbidity and mortality rates associated with the stoma while it was present were 21 and 1% respectively. We performed a stoma closure in 86 patients, 57% of whom had previously received adjuvant therapy. There was no postoperative mortality after closure and the morbidity rate was 24%. The average time between initial surgery and restoration of intestinal continuity was 152.2 days. This interval was significantly higher in patients who had received adjuvant therapy. No statistically significant difference was found between the variables analyzed and complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Diverting ileostomy is associated with low mortality and high morbidity rates before and after closure. Adjuvant chemotherapy significantly delays bowel continuity restoration, although in this study did not influence in the rate of complications.

[Ileostomy closure in a colorectal surgery unit. Comparative analysis of different techniques]

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this study is to assess whether the results of loop ileostomy closure in terms of morbidity and hospital stay are influenced by the type of anastomosis and suture used.

METHOD

All patients who underwent loop ileostomy closure were reviewed. A retrospective cohort study comparing morbidity and hospital stay according to the type of anastomosis (TT/LL) and the type of suture (hand sewn/mechanical) was performed.

RESULTS

From January 2003 to November 2011 a total of 167 loop ileostomy closures were analized. The groups were: type of anastomosis (TT 95/LL 72) and type of suture (manual 105/stapled 62). In 76% of the observed population the underlying disease was cancer. Mortality occurred in one case. The stratified morbidity analysis by type of complications showed no significant differences between the groups in terms of local (7.4% TT, LL 8.3%, 6.7% hand sewn, stapled 9.7%), general (TT 9.5%, 16.7% LL, hand sewn 6.7%, 6.5% stapled) and surgical (TT 15.8%, 19.4% LL, hand sewn 17.1%, 17.7% stapled) complications, nor in the rate of reoperations (TT 6.3%, 6.9% LL, hand sewn 6.7%, 6.5% stapled) and hospital stay in days (TT 7.8, 8 LL, hand sewn 8.6, stapled 6.7) CONCLUSIONS: Closure of loop ileostomy can be performed regardless of the type of suture or anastomosis used, with the same rate of morbidity and hospital stay.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of published, randomized, controlled trials comparing suture anastomosis to stapled anastomosis for ileostomy closure

The objective of this article is to systematically analyze the randomized, controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of suture anastomosis (SUA) versus stapled anastomosis (STA) in patients undergoing ileostomy closure. Randomized, controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of SUA versus STA in patients undergoing ileostomy closure were analyzed using RevMan(®), and combined outcomes were expressed as odds risk ratio (OR) and standardized mean difference (SMD). Four randomized, controlled trials that recruited 645 patients were retrieved from electronic databases. There were 327 patients in the STA group and 318 patients in the SUA group. There was significant heterogeneity among included trials. Operative time (SMD -1.02; 95 % CI -1.89, -0.15; z = 2.29; p < 0.02) was shorter following STA compared to SUA. In addition, risk of small bowel obstruction (OR 0.54; 95 % confidence interval (CI), 0.30, 0.95; z = 2.13; p < 0.03) was lower in the STA group. Risk of anastomotic leak (OR 0.87; 95 % CI 0.12, 6.33; z = 0.14; p = 0.89), surgical site infection, reoperation and readmission were similar following STA and SUA in patients undergoing ileostomy closure. Length of hospital stay was also similar between STA and SUA groups. In ileostomy closure, STA was associated with shorter operative time and lower risk of postoperative small bowel obstruction. However, STA and SUA were similar in terms of anastomotic leak, surgical site infection, readmission, reoperations and length of hospital stay.