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

Diagnostic accuracy of water-soluble contrast enema, contrast-enema computed tomography and endoscopy in detecting anastomotic leakage after (Colo) proctectomy: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic leakage (AL) as a result of creation of a colorectal/anal anastomosis still represents a frequent complication of colorectal surgery, with short- and long-term consequences on postoperative morbidity, quality of life and oncological outcomes. However, early diagnosis of AL may result in improved outcomes. The aims of this study were to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of water-soluble contrast enema (WSCE), contrast enema computed tomography (CECT) and endoscopy in identifying AL and to identify the diagnostic procedure that is most accurate.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of 19 studies accounting for a total of 25 tests reporting diagnostic accuracy estimates was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies (PRISMA-DTA) guidelines up to June 2021. For the diagnostic tests we evaluated the pooled estimates and conducted pairwise comparisons.

RESULTS

For WSCE, the pooled sensitivity was 0.50, the pooled specificity was 0.99 and the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.91. For endoscopy, the pooled sensitivity was 0.69, specificity was 1.00 and AUC was 0.99. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for CECT were 0.89 and 1.00, respectively; the AUC was 0.99. The comparison between CECT and WSCE highlighted a significantly greater sensitivity (p = 0.04) for CECT, whereas no difference was found for specificity. Compared with CECT, endoscopy was not significantly more accurate in terms of either sensitivity or specificity. Endoscopy was found to be significantly more specific than WSCE (p = 0.031) but no difference was found for sensitivity.

CONCLUSION

Water-soluble contrast enema, endoscopy and CECT have an elevated diagnostic accuracy. However, WSCE is less accurate than either endoscopy or CECT. Although greater sensitivity was demonstrated for CECT compared with endoscopy, this was not significant.

Intervenciones de Enfermería en la reversión del estoma intestinal: revisión integrativa

Introducción: los estomas intestinales representan un impacto significativo en la calidad de vida de las personas; sin embargo, estos deben revertirse después de haberse restituido el tránsito intestinal o la resolución del proceso inflamatorio inicial. Por otro lado, la negación de la persona para su reversión puede deberse a la falta de información y orientación por parte de los profesionales de la salud. Por lo anterior es importante identificar las intervenciones de Enfermería en la atención de la persona con reversión del estoma intestinal. Materiales y métodos: se realizó una revisión integrativa de la literatura de alcance descriptivo en el período comprendido entre los años 2015 a 2020, a través de las bases de datos Wos, Pubmed, Scopus, Scielo y Cochrane. Se seleccionaron 36 artículos que cumplieron con los criterios de inclusión y exclusión con el respectivo análisis metodológico. Resultados: Se identificaron las siguientes intervenciones de Enfermería, para el preoperatorio: valoración preoperatoria, preparación intestinal y seguimiento a comorbilidades. El intraoperatorio: profilaxis, preparación de la piel, técnica quirúrgica y cierre de la pared abdominal. En el posoperatorio: cuidado de la herida quirúrgica, calidad de vida y educación. Discusión: es importante la reflexión sobre el tiempo de reversión, la técnica quirúrgica y la importancia de las intervenciones por Enfermería. Conclusión: Enfermería cumple un papel importante en la reversión del estoma, no solo por los cuidados físicos y la educación que se brinda, sino también en las intervenciones aplicables al contexto social y emocional que afectan el estilo de vida de la persona.

Less is more-the best test for anastomotic leaks in rectal cancer patients prior to ileostomy reversal

PURPOSE

No clear consensus exists on how to routinely assess the integrity of the colorectal anastomosis prior to ileostomy reversal. The objective of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of contrast enema, endoscopic procedures, and digital rectal examination in rectal cancer patients in this setting.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed. Studies assessing at least one index test for which a 2 × 2 table was calculable were included. Hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curves were calculated and used for test comparison. Paired data were used where parameters could not be calculated. Methodological quality was assessed with the QUADAS-2 tool.

RESULTS

Two prospective and 11 retrospective studies comprising 1903 patients were eligible for inclusion. Paired data analysis showed equal or better results for sensitivity and specificity of both endoscopic procedures and digital rectal examination compared to contrast enema. Subgroup analysis of contrast enema according to methodological quality revealed that studies with higher methodological quality reported poorer sensitivity for equal specificity and vice versa. No case was described where a contrast enema revealed an anastomotic leak that was overseen in digital rectal examination or endoscopic procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopy and digital rectal examination appear to be the best diagnostic tests to assess the integrity of the colorectal anastomosis prior to ileostomy reversal. Accuracy measures of contrast enema are overestimated by studies with lower methodological quality. Synopsis of existing evidence and risk-benefit considerations justifies omission of contrast enema in favor of endoscopic and clinical assessment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42019107771.

Flexible endoscopy is enough diagnostic prior to loop ileostomy reversal

PURPOSE

This study investigates whether contrast enema (CE) and flexible endoscopy (FE) should be performed routinely after low anterior resection (LAR) before ileostomy reversal. Additionally, the impact of previous anastomotic leakage (AL) on diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) was assessed.

METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected tertiary care data of two centers. Consecutive rectal cancer patients undergoing LAR with loop ileostomy formation were included. Before ileostomy reversal, all patients were assessed by CE and FE. DTA of FE and CE for asymptomatic AL in patients who had previously suffered from clinically relevant AL (group 1) compared with those without apparent AL after LAR (group 0) were assessed separately.

RESULTS

Two hundred ninety-three patients were included in the analysis, 86 in group 1 and 207 in group 0. Overall sensitivity for detection of asymptomatic AL was 76% (FE) and 60% (CE). Specificity was 100% for both tests. DTA of FE was equal or superior to CE in all subgroups. Prevalence of asymptomatic AL at the time of testing was 1.4% in group 0 and 25.6% in group 1.

CONCLUSION

Flexible endoscopy is the more accurate diagnostic test for the detection of asymptomatic anastomotic leaks prior to ileostomy reversal. Contrast enema showed no gain of information. In the group without complications after the initial rectal resection, 104 must be tested to find one leak prior to reversal. In those patients, routine diagnostic testing additional to digital rectal examination may be questioned.