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

Does one-stitch method of temporary ileostomy affect the stoma-related complications after laparoscopic low anterior resection in rectal cancer patients?

PURPOSE

This current study attempted to investigate whether one-stitch method (OM) of temporary ileostomy influenced the stoma-related complications after laparoscopic low anterior resection (LLAR).

METHODS

We searched for eligible studies in four databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and CNKI from inception to July 20, 2023. Both surgical outcomes and stoma-related complications were compared between the OM group and the traditional method (TM) group. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was adopted for quality assessment. RevMan 5.4 was conducted for data analyzing.

RESULTS

Totally 590 patients from six studies were enrolled in this study (272 patients in the OM group and 318 patients in the TM group). No significant difference was found in baseline information (P > 0.05). Patients in the OM group had shorter operative time in both the primary LLAR surgery (MD = - 17.73, 95%CI = - 25.65 to - 9.80, P < 0.01) and the stoma reversal surgery (MD = - 18.70, 95%CI = - 22.48 to -14.92, P < 0.01) than patients in the TM group. There was no significant difference in intraoperative blood loss of the primary LLAR surgery (MD = - 2.92, 95%CI = - 7.15 to 1.32, P = 0.18). Moreover, patients in the OM group had fewer stoma-related complications than patients in the TM group (OR = 0.55, 95%CI = 0.38 to 0.79, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

The OM group had shorter operation time in both the primary LLAR surgery and the stoma reversal surgery than the TM group. Moreover, the OM group had less stoma-related complications.

Meta-analysis: loop ileostomy versus colostomy to prevent complications of anterior resection for rectal cancer

PURPOSE

Anastomotic leakage is a serious complication of colorectal cancer surgery, prolonging hospital stays and impacting patient prognosis. Preventive colostomy is required in patients at risk of anastomotic fistulas. However, it remains unclear whether the commonly used loop colostomy(LC) or loop ileostomy(LI) can reduce the complications of colorectal surgery. This study aims to compare perioperative morbidities associated with LC and LI following anterior rectal cancer resection, including LC and LI reversal.

METHODS

In this meta-analysis, the Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for prospective cohort studies, retrospective cohort studies, and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on perioperative morbidity during stoma development and reversal up to July 2023, The meta-analysis included 10 trials with 2036 individuals (2 RCTs and 8 cohorts).

RESULTS

No significant differences in morbidity, mortality, or stoma-related issues were found between the LI and LC groups after anterior resection surgery. However, patients in the LC group exhibited higher rates of stoma prolapse (RR: 0.39; 95%CI: 0.19-0.82; P = 0.01), retraction (RR: 0.45; 95%CI: 0.29-0.71; P < 0.01), surgical site infection (RR: 0.52; 95%CI: 0.27-1.00; P = 0.05) and incisional hernias (RR: 0.53; 95%CI: 0.32-0.89; P = 0.02) after stoma closure compared to those in the LI group. Conversely, the LI group showed higher rates of dehydration or electrolyte imbalances(RR: 2.98; 95%CI: 1.51-5.89; P < 0.01), high-output(RR: 6.17; 95%CI: 1.24-30.64; P = 0.03), and renal insufficiency post-surgery(RR: 2.51; 95%CI: 1.01-6.27; P = 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Our study strongly recommends a preventive LI for anterior resection due to rectal cancer. However, ileostomy is more likely to result in dehydration, renal insufficiency, and intestinal obstruction. More multicenter RCTs are needed to corroborate this.

'Dumpling suture method' versus traditional suture method of protective loop ileostomy in laparoscopic anterior rectal resection with specimen extraction through stoma incision: a retrospective comparative cohort study

BACKGROUND

A diverting loop ileostomy (DLI) is performed in laparoscopic anterior rectal resection (LAR) surgery at high risk of anastomotic fistula. Minimally invasive surgery promotes postoperative recovery and cosmetics. To reduce abdominal trauma, specimen extraction through stoma incision (EXSI) is usually performed to avoid auxiliary abdominal incision with enlarged stomal incision. The traditional suture method (TSM) reduces the incision size by suturing the ends of the enlarged incision, leading to peristomal incisions and a higher risk of stomal complications. The study aimed to introduce the dumpling suture method (DSM) of PLI and compare this new method with TSM.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The authors propose a novel stoma suture technique, which utilized a method of skin folding suture to reduce the enlarged incision size. A retrospective analysis was conducted on 71 consecutive patients with rectal cancer who underwent LAR-DLI with EXSI, and the intraoperative details and postoperative outcomes of the two groups were measured.

RESULTS

The DSM group showed a lower stomal complication rate (10.3 vs. 35.7%, P=0.016) than that of the TSM group. The scores of DET (Discoloration, Erosion, Tissue overgrowth), stomal pain, quality of life were all significantly lower in DSM group than in TSM group. In multivariate analysis, DSM was an independent protective factor for stoma-related complications. Operative time, time to first flatus, defecation and eat, nonstomal related postoperative complications were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

DSM utilizes a method of skin folding suture to reduce the enlarged incision size, which is safe and effective in reducing the incidence of peristomal skin infections and stomal complications. This procedure offers a novel suturing approach for loop ileostomy with enlarged incision, effectively reducing the postoperative trauma and incidence of stomal complications.

Feasibility and safety of specimen extraction via an enlarged (U-Plus) skin bridge loop ileostomy: a single-center retrospective comparative study

Objective

To investigate the feasibility and safety of specimen extraction via an enlarged (U-Plus) skin bridge loop ileostomy.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of 95 patients with rectal cancer who underwent laparoscopic low anterior rectal resection and skin bridge loop ileostomy between August 2018 and August 2022, including 44 patients with specimen extraction via an enlarged (U-Plus) skin bridge loop ileostomy (experimental group) and 51 patients with specimen extraction via an abdominal incision (control group). Following the application of propensity score matching (PSM), 34 pairs of data were successfully matched. Subsequently, a comparative analysis was conducted on the clinical data of the two groups.

Results

The experimental group exhibited significantly better outcomes than the control group in various aspects. Specifically, the experimental group had lower values for average operative time (P < 0.001), estimated blood loss (P < 0.001), median length of visible incision after surgery (P < 0.001), median VAS pain score on the first day after surgery (P = 0.015), and average postoperative hospitalization (P = 0.001). There was no statistical significance observed in the incidence of stoma-related complications in both groups (P > 0.05). Within each group, the stoma-QOL scores before stoma closure surgery were significantly higher than those at one month and two months after the surgery, with statistical significance (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Specimen extraction via a U-Plus skin bridge loop ileostomy is a safe and feasible method that shortens operation time and postoperative visual incision length, decreases estimated blood loss, and reduces patient postoperative pain compared with specimen extraction via an abdominal incision.

Comparison of specimen extraction site and another site for protective loop ileostomy in laparoscopic low anterior rectal resection: a retrospective comparative study

BACKGROUND

Protective loop ileostomy is commonly performed in laparoscopic low anterior rectal resection to prevent the serious complications of anastomotic fistula. It is usually created at the right lower quadrant of the abdomen and another wound is required for stoma. The study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of ileostomy at the specimen extraction site (SES) and another site (AS) beside the auxiliary incision.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted on 101 eligible patients with pathologically diagnosed adenocarcinoma of the rectum from January 2020 to December 2021 in the study center. According to whether the ileostomy was at the specimen extraction site, patients were divided into SES group (40 patients) and AS group (61 patients). Clinicopathological characteristics, the intraoperative details, and postoperative outcomes of the two groups were measured.

RESULTS

Univariate analysis showed that the operative time was significantly shorter and the blood loss was significantly less in the SES group than in the AS group during laparoscopic low anterior rectal resection, the time to first flatus was significantly shorter, and the pain was significantly less in the SES group than in the AS group during ileostomy closure. The postoperative complications were similar in both groups. Multivariable analysis showed that ileostomy at the specimen extraction site was a significant factor influencing the operative time and blood loss of rectal resection, and influencing the pain and the time to first flatus during ileostomy closure.

CONCLUSION

Compared to ileostomy at AS, protective loop ileostomy at SES was time-saving and less bleeding during laparoscopic low anterior rectal resection, and more quick to first flatus and less pain during stoma closure, and did not lead to more postoperative complications. The median incision of the lower abdomen and the left lower abdominal incision were both good sites for ileostomy.

Risk factors for periappendiceal adhesions in acute appendicitis: a retrospective comparative study

PURPOSE

Acute appendicitis usually requires immediate surgical treatment, but appendectomies were difficult for some patients with severe periappendiceal adhesions. We investigated risk factors of intraoperative adhesions to help surgeons make better treatment plans for appendicitis.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 186 cases diagnosed with acute appendicitis and underwent surgery in Shandong Provincial Hospital affiliated to Shandong First Medical University between January 2018 and December 2019. According to the degree of intraoperative adhesions, they were divided into mild, moderate and severe groups. Then, we analyzed a number of preoperative factors contributed to adhesions, suppuration and perforation during appendectomy in 186 patients.

RESULTS

Contrast to the moderate group (MoG) and the mild group (MiG), the severe degree of adhesions group (SG) had a higher intraoperative perforation and suppuration rate, a greater likelihood of conversion to open and more postoperative complications. Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that recurrent appendicitis and high neutrophil percentage were independently associated with periappendiceal adhesions. The preoperative ultrasonography (US) revealed periappendiceal fluid and high neutrophil percentage were independently associated with appendix suppuration. A high preoperative neutrophil percentage was independently associated with appendix perforation.

CONCLUSIONS

Recurrent appendicitis and preoperative high neutrophil percentage were risk factors of periappendiceal adhesions; preoperative US revealed periappendiceal fluid and high neutrophil percentage were risk factors of appendix suppuration; and a high preoperative neutrophil percentage was a risk factor of appendix perforation.