Early ileostomy closure: is there a downside?

Factors affecting timing of loop ileostomy closure: a regional centre's experience with 106 patients

INTRODUCTION

The burden of defunctioning ileostomy is significant with up to two thirds of patients reporting stoma-related morbidity. While timely reversal is safe and cost-effective, the time to reversal in regional Australian hospitals is not well described in professional publications. We aim to assess the current timeliness of ileostomy closure and identify possible reasons for delaying closure.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of loop ileostomies created and reversed in Launceston General Hospital for both rectal cancer surgery and other benign indications was undertaken. Patients with loop ileostomy created between 2010 and 2020 were included. Clinical data of timing of events, complications, readmission and stoma follow-up were recorded; and analysed using multivariate regression analyses to identify clinically relevant risk factors for delayed closure.

RESULTS

A total of 123 patients underwent loop-ileostomy formation during the study period, of which 106 patients (86.2%) were reversed. Median time to closure was 8.5 months (IQR 5.2-12.4) for patients with rectal cancers, compared to 5.2 months (IQR 3.6-9.3) for patients who did not have rectal cancer, with a difference of 3.4 months (95% CI 0.9, 5.9; P = 0.008). Adjuvant chemotherapy and unexpected readmission to hospital were associated with delayed reversal (P = 0.0081 and P = 0.0005, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Stoma reversal is often scheduled 3-6 months after creation. More than two-thirds of patients experienced delays due to changing clinical concerns and non-clinical factors, such as unexpected delays at each stage of surgical planning. Early placement on the waiting list and better-coordinated follow-ups may expedite reversal surgery and reduce associated morbidities.

Causes and costs of delayed closure of ileostomies in rectal cancer patients in Australasian units

BACKGROUND

Defunctioning loop ileostomies (DLIs) are a frequent adjunct to rectal cancer surgery. Delayed closure of DLIs is common and associated with increased morbidity. The reasons for delayed DLI closure are often unknown. The economic burden of delayed DLI closure is not quantified. The present study aimed to determine the reasons for, and economic burden of, delayed DLI closure.

METHODS

Clinical and economic data were audited from a prospective database of patients in two Australasian colorectal cancer centres. Patients treated at each unit with low/ultra-low anterior resection for rectal cancer with formation of DLI between January 2014 and December 2019 were included. Post-operative complication rate, stoma-related complication rate and costs of hospital admissions and stoma care were recorded and analysed. Multivariate linear regression analysis was used to investigate risk factors for delay to closure.

RESULTS

146 patients underwent low/ultra-low anterior resection with DLI; 135 patients (92.5%) underwent reversal. The median duration to reversal was 7 months (IQR 4.5-9.5). Sixty-six percent of patients underwent reversal >6 months after their index surgery. Neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy were associated with delayed reversal (P < 0.001). Non-English speakers waited longer for DLI closure (P = 0.028). The costs of outpatient stoma care (P < 0.001), post-operative care (P = 0.004), and total cost of treatment (P = 0.014) were significantly higher in the delayed closure group, with a total cost of treatment difference of $3854 NZD per patient.

CONCLUSIONS

Causes of delay include systemic factors and demographic factors that can be addressed directly, addressing such causes may alleviate a significant economic burden.

Patient and surgeon preferences for early ileostomy closure following restorative proctectomy for rectal cancer: why aren't we doing it?

BACKGROUND

Early ileostomy closure (EIC), ≤ 2 weeks from creation, is a relatively new practice. Multiple studies have demonstrated that this approach is safe, feasible, and cost-effective. Despite the demonstrated benefits, this is neither routine practice, nor has it been studied, in North America. This study aimed to assess patient and surgeon perspectives about EIC.

METHODS

A mixed-methods, cross-sectional study of patients and surgeons was performed. Rectal cancer survivors from a single institution who underwent restorative proctectomy with diverting loop ileostomy and subsequent closure within the last 5 years were contacted. North American surgeons with high rectal cancer volumes (> 20 cases/year) were included. Surveys (patients) and semi-structured interviews (surgeons) were conducted. Analysis employed descriptive statistics and thematic analysis, respectively.

RESULTS

Forty-eight patients were surveyed (mean age 65.1 ± 11.8 years; 54.2% male). Stoma closure occurred after a median of 7.7 months (IQR 4.8-10.9) and 50.0% (24) found it "difficult" or "very difficult" to live with their stoma. Patients considered improvement in quality of life and quicker return to normal function the most important advantages of EIC, whereas the idea of two operations in two weeks being too taxing on the body was deemed the biggest disadvantage. Most patients (35, 72.9%) would have opted for EIC. Surgeon interviews (15) revealed 4 overarching themes: (1) there are many benefits to EIC; (2) specific patient characteristics would make EIC an appropriate option; (3) many barriers to implementing EIC exist; and (4) many logistical hurdles need to be addressed for successful implementation. Most surgeons (12, 80.0%) would "definitely want to participate" in a North American randomized-controlled trial (RCT) on EIC for rectal cancer patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementing EIC poses many logistical challenges. Both patients and surgeons are interested in further exploring EIC and believe it warrants a North American RCT to motivate a change in practice.

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

Background

Formation of a defunctioning loop ileostomy is common after mid and low rectal resection. Historically, they were reversed between 3 and 6 months after initial resection. Recently, earlier closure (< 14 days) has been suggested by some current randomised controlled trials. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of early stoma closure on surgical and patient outcomes.

Methods

A systematic review of the current randomised controlled trial literature comparing early and standard ileostomy closure after rectal surgery was performed. Specifically, we examined surgical outcomes including; morbidity, mortality and quality of life.

Results

Six studies met the predefined criteria and were included in our analysis. 275 patients underwent early stoma closure compared with 259 patients having standard closure. Overall morbidity was similar between both groups (25.5% vs. 21.6%) (OR, 1.47; 95% CI 0.75–2.87). However, there tended to be more reoperations (8.4 vs. 4.2%) (OR, 2.02, 95% CI 0.99–4.14) and small bowel obstructions/postoperative ileus (9.3% vs. 4.4%) (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.22–0.90) in the early closure group, but no difference across the other domains.

Conclusions

Early closure appears to be a feasible in highly selective cases after good perioperative counselling and shared decision-making. Further research on quality of life outcomes and long term benefits is necessary to help define which patients are suitable candidates for early closure.

Safety of early ileostomy closure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

Patients with a defunctioning ileostomy after rectal resection experience substantial ileostomy-related morbidity and decreased quality of life. Early reversal of the defunctioning ileostomy has been proposed as a method of mitigating these problems. We aimed to evaluate the safety of early ileostomy closure within 6 weeks.

METHOD

Randomized controlled trials investigating the safety of early ileostomy closure were identified through a systematic search and review of the current literature. Meta-analysis of the extracted outcome data was performed, and the methodological quality of the individual studies was assessed.

RESULTS

The search identified six eligible studies yielding a total of 528 patients, with 269 in the early closure (EC) group and 259 in the standard closure (SC) group. Major complications in the EC group was 5.2% compared with 3.6% in the SC group (RR = 1.12, 95% CI 0.33-3.79). Anastomotic leakage in the EC group was 3.3% compared with 3.5% in the SC group (RR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.29-2.75). The meta-analysis resulted in no statistically significant differences between the groups in any of the primary or secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSION

This review was not able to discern a statistically significant difference in postoperative complications when comparing early and standard ileostomy closure. The current literature indicates that early ileostomy closure is not associated with higher complication rates in patients with an uncomplicated postoperative course and radiologically verified intact distal anastomosis after index surgery.

A Systematic Review of Early versus Late Closure of Loop Ileostomy

Introduction

A Loop ileostomy is one of the most common techniques used in colorectal surgery to establish a reversible faecal diversion and bypass the large bowels, in order to protect either a downstream colorectal anastomosis or a coloanal anastomosis. However, it is a procedure that can cause a plethora of complications including long term ones such as the psychological effects. Currently, there is no consensus regarding the optimal time to perform closure of a loop ileostomy. Some studies suggested the early reversal of ileostomy procedure as a solution to reduce these complications. This study aims to review the available literature in order to ascertain the benefits behind early closure of loop ileostomy.

Methods

The literature was searched for all studies that included a comparison between the outcomes of early and late closure of loop ileostomy in terms of morbidity, mortality, or quality of life, where available. Early closure of loop ileostomy is defined as closure less than three months and late as more than three months, in accordance with conventional literature. The resultant articles were filtered using our inclusion and exclusion criteria. Finally, the remaining articles were assessed for quality and their results were compared to one another in order to draw our conclusions. Results and Discussion. The results were slightly inclined toward early closure of loop ileostomy. However, there were limitations of the studies reviewed, including the heterogenicity of studies, selection bias, lack of clear definition of measured outcomes, and small sample size. Taking that into consideration, the results of early closure of loop ileostomies in the selected patients were promising and require further investigation.

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.

The feasibility and safety of early ileostomy reversal: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Recent evidence supports the safety of early reversal of a temporary stoma, within 14 days of construction. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the post-operative morbidity and overall feasibility of early stoma reversal.

METHODS

Medline and Cochrane databases were searched for studies up to June 2019 that investigated the outcomes of early stoma reversal (EC, defined as closure ≤14 days from the index operation) versus late stoma reversal (LC, ≥8 weeks from the index operation). Meta-analysis was performed on the respective rates of post-operative morbidity, anastomotic leak, wound infection, bleeding, sepsis, small bowel obstruction and ileus.

RESULTS

Nine studies were included (667 patients analysed). Meta-analysis showed no significant difference in the post-operative morbidity rate, anastomotic leak rate, rates of small bowel obstruction, bleeding and ileus between EC and LC. However, the wound infection rate was significantly higher after EC than LC; relative difference 0.10 (95% confidence interval 0.00-0.19, P = 0.047). The stoma-related complication rate was significantly higher after LC than EC; relative difference -0.28 (95% confidence interval -0.45 to -0.11, P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The concept of early stoma reversal is appealing, and this meta-analysis confirms the safety of early stoma closure with an associated reduction in stoma-related complications despite higher wound infection rates. However, the results need to be interpreted with caution due to the heterogeneity of the studies included, especially in respect of the definition of complications that were used. Further well-designed prospective studies are required prior to confident adoption of early stoma closure into clinical practice.

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.

Early ileostomy reversal after minimally invasive surgery and ERAS program for mid and low rectal cancer

Diverting loop ileostomy following low anterior resection (LAR) is known to decrease quality of life and prolongs the return back to patients' baseline activity. The aim of this retrospective study was to explore feasibility and safety of an early ileostomy reversal strategy in a cohort of patients undergoing minimally invasive LAR within an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program. Prospectively collected data from 15 patients who underwent minimally invasive LAR and diverting ileostomy at the Division of General and Hepatobiliary Surgery, University of Verona Hospital Trust between September 2015 and December 2016 were retrospectively analyzed. Of 15 patients, 10 patients underwent laparoscopic LAR and 5 patients a robot-assisted procedure. Post-operative complications were observed in 5 patients. Four patients suffered Clavien-Dindo grade 1 or 2 complications, and one patient required redo surgery due to bowel obstruction at the ileostomy site (grade 3b). Following ileostomy reversal, 10 out of 15 patients experienced complications. Two patients required redo surgery for bowel obstruction (grade 3b), whilst eight patients suffered grade 1 or 2 complications, being surgical site infection the most frequently observed (6 cases). Despite that, 80% of patients had their ileostomy reversed within 30 days and median time from initial surgery to ileostomy reversal was 22 days (range 10-150). Early ileostomy closure after minimally invasive LAR and ERAS program is feasible although it carries non-negligible risk of severe complications which, however, does not hinder its accomplishment.

Early versus conventional stoma closure following bowel surgery: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND/AIM

To compare early stoma closure with conventional stoma closure following defunctioning diversion stoma surgery with respect to the frequency of complications, health-related quality of life (QoL), and length of hospitalization (LoH).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This study was designed as a prospective parallel-arm randomized controlled trial. Patients who underwent temporary stoma following bowel surgery between February 2014 and November 2015 were included. The rate of complications (medical and surgical) following early and conventional stoma closure was assessed. Health-related QoL and LoH were also measured.

RESULTS

One hundred patients were included, with 50 cases in each group. Postoperative complications including laparostoma (6% vs. 2%;P = 0.307), wound infection (32% vs. 18%; P = 0.106), intra-abdominal collection (14% vs. 18%; P = 0.585), anastomotic leak (4%vs. 8%;P = 0.400), and medical complications were comparable (22% vs. 32%;P = 0.257). The length of hospital stay, overall mortality and morbidity (64% vs. 44%; P = 0.05) were similar across the two groups. There was a significant reduction in the cost towards stoma care (96% vs. 2%; P = 0.001) in the early stoma closure group. Patients in the early stoma closure group also had a significantly better QoL.

CONCLUSION

Early stoma closure does not carry an increased risk of postoperative complications, reduces cost towards stoma care, and leads to better a QoL.

Considerations in Stoma Reversal

Temporary stomas are frequently used in the management of diverticulitis, colorectal cancer, and inflammatory bowel disease. These temporary stomas are used to try to mitigate septic complications from anastomotic leaks and to avoid the need for reoperation. Once acute medical conditions have improved and after the anastomosis has been proven to be healed, stomas can be reversed. Contrast enemas, digital rectal examination, and endoscopic evaluation are used to evaluate the anastomosis prior to reversal. Stoma reversal is associated with complications including anastomotic leak, postoperative ileus, bowel obstruction, enterocutaneous fistula, and, most commonly, surgical site infection. Furthermore, many stomas, which were intended to be temporary, may not be reversed due to postoperative complications, adjuvant therapy, or prohibitive comorbidities.

Is Early Reversal of Defunctioning Ileostomy a Shorter, Easier and Less Expensive Operation?

BACKGROUND

A defunctioning loop ileostomy mitigates the consequences of anastomotic leak from low rectal anastomosis but it is associated with significant morbidity. In this study, the outcome of early reversal of defunctioning ileostomy during the same admission with the primary operation was assessed.

METHODS

This randomized study was carried out at York Teaching Hospital during the period 2003-2007. All patients with defunctioning ileostomy were considered for an early second operation if they had an uneventful recovery and were in good general condition. Patients on steroids, at high cardiorespiratory risk and those experiencing any postoperative complication were excluded. Eligible patients with satisfactory gastrografin enema on postoperative day 6 were randomized to early versus late reversal at 6-8 weeks. Outcome measures were ease of closure as assessed by a visual analog scale by the operating surgeon, all postoperative complications, duration of the operation, total length of hospital stay and associated costs.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine consecutive patients were assessed for eligibility and finally 26 were included in the study. Sixteen patients underwent early reversal. The median(interquartile range (IQR)) age was 62(22) years. Early reversal was significantly superior in terms of ease of abdominal wall closure, ease of reversal (p < 0.01 each), duration of the operation (median(IQR) 20(13) vs. 40(9) min, p < 0.01) and costs of stoma care (median(IQR) 27(9) vs. 311(108) £, p < 0.01). There were no major (grade III/IV) complications in either group. Total length of hospital stay was similar between groups.

CONCLUSION

In carefully selected patients, early reversal of defunctioning ileostomy is feasible, technically easier and has shorter operative time which can also lead to significant cost savings.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Loop Ileostomy Reversal: Is there an Advantage to a Minimally Invasive Approach?

BACKGROUND

Ileostomy reversals are commonly performed procedures after colon and rectal operations. Laparoscopic ileostomy reversal (LIR) with lysis of adhesions has potential benefits over conventional open surgery. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of laparoscopic and open ileostomy reversal.

METHODS

133 consecutive patients undergoing ileostomy reversal at our institution between June 2009 and August 2013 were analyzed using a retrospective database. The group comprised 53 laparoscopic cases and 80 open cases, performed by four surgeons at a single center. The data were analyzed for patient demographics, operative characteristics, postoperative outcomes, and 30-day morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

The two groups had comparable mean age, gender distribution, ASA scores, and BMI. The laparoscopic group had a significantly longer duration of surgery compared to the open reversal group (109 versus 93 min, p < 0.05). However, this group underwent more lysis of adhesions (60.4 % versus 26.3 %, p < 0.01) as well as concurrent stoma site mesh reinforcement (32.1 % versus 6.3 %, p < 0.01). In the laparoscopy group, 20.7 % of patients underwent intra-corporeal ileo-ileal anastomosis. There were no significant differences between the laparoscopic and open groups with regard to estimated blood loss (31 versus 40 ml, respectively) or mean length of stay (5.3 vs. 5.7 days, respectively). The rates of overall 30-day morbidity (16.9 % for laparoscopic vs. 21.3 % for open) as well as rates of specific complications were equivalent between groups. 30-day mortalities were not noted in either group.

CONCLUSION

LIR is safe and effective with low perioperative morbidity and mortality. The use of laparoscopy as an option in terms of concomitant hernia repair and lysis of adhesions may be considered in selected patients.

Morbidities after closure of ileostomy: analysis of risk factors

PURPOSE

Low anterior resection is commonly performed for carcinoma of the distal rectum. Diverting ileostomy has been used to decrease the septic consequence of anastomotic leakage and to reduce the re-operation rate. Nevertheless, subsequent closure of ileostomy can be associated with considerable morbidities. This study aimed to evaluate the morbidities after closure of ileostomy and to identify possible risk factors associated with the morbidities.

METHODS

Data of patients who underwent closure of ileostomy, after a previous low anterior resection and defunctioning ileostomy for rectal cancer, was reviewed retrospectively. Patient's demographics, coexisting morbidities, operative details, and post-operative outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

From January 2000 to September 2012, 213 patients who underwent ileostomy closure were included. Thirty-five patients developed post-operative complications. The overall complication rate was 16.4 %. The majority of complications could be managed by conservative treatment. Only one patient required re-operation due to intestinal obstruction. There was no 30-day mortality. Age >80 years was an independent risk factor for post-operative complications. Age >80 years was also an independent risk factor for developing urinary retention (p = 0.001) and prolonged ileus (p = 0.02). Closure of ileostomy with hand-sewn techniques showed a higher incidence of post-operative intestinal obstruction (p = 0.049) compared to closure using stapler.

CONCLUSION

Closure of ileostomy following low anterior resection is associated with acceptable morbidities. Elderly patients tend to have a more complicated post-operative course and require more medical attention. The use of stapler is the preferred method for ileostomy closure as it is associated with less post-operative intestinal obstruction.

Cost analysis of early versus delayed loop ileostomy closure: a case-matched study

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The optimal timing for the closure of loop ileostomies remains controversial. The aim of the current study was to investigate whether early ileostomy closure (EC) (<2 weeks post-formation) results in significant healthcare savings as against late closure (LC).

METHODS

Patients with available cost data that underwent EC between January 2008 and December 2012 were compared against matched patients undergoing LC during the same period. Direct hospital costs for the two groups were compared.

RESULTS

There were 42 EC patients and 61 LC patients. EC patients had significantly less ileostomy-related complications (p < 0.001) and hospital readmissions (p < 0.001). Operative time (p < 0.001) and operative cost (p = 0.002) were also both significantly less in the EC group. Community nursing costs favoured the LC group (p = 0.047). The EC group had an increased post-closure wound infection rate (p = 0.02). The mean total direct cost per patient was NZD 13,724 (SD NZD 3,736) for EC and NZD 16,728 (SD NZD 8,028) for LC. Representing an average costs saving of NZD 3,004 per patient favouring EC (p = 0.012).

CONCLUSION

Although EC increases the post-closure wound infection rate, EC reduces ileostomy complications, hospital readmissions and operative costs resulting in significant healthcare savings. In order to improve patient outcomes and make EC even more cost effective, efforts should be taken to reduce wound infections.

Factors affecting timing of closure and non-reversal of temporary ileostomies

BACKGROUND

Although stoma closure is considered a simple surgical intervention, the interval between construction and reversal is often prolonged, and some ileostomies may never be reversed. We evaluated possible predictors for non-reversal and prolonged interval between construction and reversal.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In a cohort study of ileostomy patients treated in a large teaching hospital, we collected data from the surgical complication and enterostomal therapists' registries between January 2001 and December 2011. Parameters responsible for morbidity, mortality, length of stay and time interval between construction and reversal were analysed.

RESULTS

Of 485 intentionally temporary ileostomies, 359 were reversed after a median of 5.6 months (IQR 3.8-8.9 months), while 126 (26%) remained permanent. End ileostomy and intra-abdominal abscess independently delayed reversal. Age, end ileostomy, higher body mass index and preoperative radiotherapy were independent factors for non-reversal. Median duration of hospitalisation for reversal was 7.0 days (5-13 days). Morbidity and mortality were 31 and 0.9%, respectively. In 20 patients (5.5%), re-ileostomy was necessary.

CONCLUSIONS

A substantial number of ileostomies that are intended to be temporary will never be reversed. If reversed, the interval between construction and reversal is longer than anticipated, while morbidity after reversal and duration of hospitalisation are considerable. Besides a temporary ileostomy, there are two other options: no diversion or a permanent colostomy. Shared decision-making is to be preferred in these situations.

A preliminary study of transcaecal ileostomy as an alternative to defunctioning ostomies

AIM

To evaluate the usefulness of a transcaecal ileostomy catheter for protecting distal lower rectal anastomosis as an alternative to conventional ileostomy.

METHOD

Patients with a rectal cancer located 3-10 cm from the anal verge were included in the study. In all cases, an open low or ultra-low anterior resection of the rectum was performed with total mesorectal excision. A balloon catheter was inserted through the caecum and ileocaecal valve, with the catheter's distal end placed in terminal ileum. A computed tomography (CT) scan was performed 7 days postoperatively to check the integrity of the anastomosis; the transcaecal catheter was withdrawn if no complications were detected.

RESULTS

Eighteen patients were treated with a transcaecal catheter. Two patients developed cellulitis (11.1%) in the catheter exit wound. In both cases, successful healing was achieved within a month of surgery. One patient had anastomotic dehiscence (5.5%) after removal of the catheter following a normal CT examination. The median hospital stay was 10 days (range 8-13 days).

CONCLUSION

A transcaecal ileostomy catheter to protect a distal rectal anastomosis is a potential alternative to loop ileostomy with potentially fewer complications and without need for a second procedure for closure.