Postoperative management after loop ileostomy closure: are we keeping patients in hospital too long?

Loop Ileostomy Closure as a 23-Hour Stay Procedure With Preoperative Efferent Limb Enteral Stimulation: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Loop ileostomy closure is a common procedure in colorectal surgery. Often seen as a simple operation associated with a low complication rate, it still leads to lengthy hospitalizations. Reducing postoperative complications and ileus rates could lead to a shorter length of stay and even ambulatory surgery.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to assess the safety and feasibility of ileostomy closure performed in a 23-hour hospitalization setting using a standardized enhanced recovery pathway.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial.

SETTINGS

Two high-volume colorectal surgery centers.

PATIENTS

Healthy adults undergoing elective ileostomy closure from July 2019 to January 2022.

INTERVENTION

All patients were enrolled in a standardized enhanced recovery pathway specific to ileostomy closure, including daily irrigation of efferent limb with a nutritional formula for 7 days before surgery. Patients were randomly allocated to either conventional hospitalization (n = 23) or a 23-hour stay (n = 24).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome was total length of stay and secondary outcomes were 30-day rates of readmission, postoperative ileus, surgical site infections, and postoperative morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 47 patients were ultimately randomly allocated. Patients in the 23-hour hospitalization arm had a shorter median length of stay (1 vs 2 days, p = 0.02) and similar rates of readmission (4% vs 13%, p = 0.35), postoperative ileus (none in both arms), surgical site infection (0% vs 4%, p = 0.49), postoperative morbidity (21% vs 22%, p = 1.00), and mortality (none in both arms).

LIMITATIONS

Due to coronavirus disease 2019, access to surgical beds was greatly limited, leading to a shift toward ambulatory surgery for ileostomy closure. The study was terminated early, which affected its statistical power.

CONCLUSION

Loop ileostomy closures as 23-hour stay procedures are feasible and safe. Ileus rate might be reduced by preoperative intestinal stimulation with nutritional formula through the stoma's efferent limb, although specific randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm this association. See Video Abstract .

CIERRE DE ILEOSTOMA EN ASA COMO PROCEDIMIENTO AMBULATORIO DE HORAS CON ESTMULO PREOPERATORIO ENTERAL EFERENTE ESTUDIO ALEATORIO CONTROLADO

ANTECEDENTES:El cierre de la ileostomía en asa es un procedimiento común en la cirugía colorrectal. A menudo vista como una operación simple asociada con bajas tasas de complicaciones, aún conduce a largas hospitalizaciones. La reducción de las complicaciones postoperatorias y las tasas de íleo podría conducir a una estadía hospitalaria más corta o incluso a una cirugía ambulatoria.OBJETIVOS:El presente estudio pretende evaluar la seguridad y la viabilidad del cierre de ileostomía realizadas en un entorno de hospitalización de 23 horas utilizando una vía de recuperación mejorada y estandarizada.DISEÑO:Estudio aleatorio controladoAJUSTES:Dos centros de cirugía colorrectal de gran volúmenPACIENTES:Adultos sanos sometidos a cierre electivo de ileostomía, desde Julio de 2019 hasta Enero de 2022.INTERVENCIÓN:Todos los pacientes fueron inscritos en una vía de recuperación mejorada y estandarizada específica para el cierre de la ileostomía, incluyendo la irrigación diaria de la extremidad eferente del intestino asociada a una fórmula nutricional durante 7 días previos a la cirugía. Los pacientes fueron asignados aleatoriamente en hospitalización convencional (n = 23) o a una estadía de 23 horas (n = 24).PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:El resultado primario fue la duración total de la estadía hospitalaria y los resultados secundarios fueron las tasas de reingreso a los 30 días, el íleo postoperatorio, las infecciones de la herida quirúrgica, la morbilidad y mortalidad postoperatorias.RESULTADOS:Finalmente fueron randomizados un total de 47 pacientes. Aquellos que se encontraban en el grupo de hospitalización de 23 horas tuvieron una estadía media más corta (1 día versus 2 días, p = 0,02) y tasas similares de reingreso (4% vs 13%, p = 0,35), de íleo postoperatorio (ninguno en ambos brazos), de infección del sitio quirúrgico (0 vs 4%, p = 0,49), de morbilidad postoperatoria (21% vs 22%, p > 0,99) y de mortalidad (ninguna en ambos brazos).LIMITACIONES:Debido a la pandemia SARS CoV-2, el acceso a las camas quirúrgicas fue muy limitado, lo que llevó a un cambio hacia la cirugía ambulatoria para el cierre de ileostomías. El estudio finalizó anticipadamente, lo que afectó su poder estadístico.CONCLUSIÓN:Los cierres de ileostomía en asa como procedimientos de estadía de 23 horas son factibles y seguros. La tasa de íleo podría reducirse mediante la estimulación intestinal preoperatoria a través de la rama eferente del estoma asociada a fórmulas nutricionales, por lo que se necesitan estudios randomizados específicos para confirmar esta asociación. (Traducción-Dr. Xavier Delgadillo ).

Preliminary results of Polish national multicenter LILEO study on ileostomy reversal

<b><br>Introduction:</b> Ileostomy reversal is a common surgical procedure and currently standardized perioperative and surgical protocols are lacking.</br> <b><br>Aim:</b> LILEO study was designed to perform a multicenter analysis on numerous perioperative parameters and estimation of the incidence of postoperative complications.</br> <b><br>Materials and methods:</b> The study is an open multicenter prospective cohort study. Preliminary results of the LILEO study after 3 months were available from 18 Polish surgical centers comprising full data of 59 patients who underwent ileostomy reversal.</br> <b><br>Results:</b> Parameters such as preoperative care, surgical technique, postoperative course and complications were analyzed. Preoperative fasting was used in 49.1% of patients. Fifty nine percent of anastomosis were handsewn and in 72.9% of patients had primary single suture wound closure. Mean length of hospital stay was 7.9 days (min 2 days, max 26 days). Complications occurred overall in 20 patients (33.9%). In 11.9% of patient's complications had grade III A/B in Clavien-Dindo classification.</br> <b><br>Discussion:</b> The perioperative care in the group of patients undergoing ileostomy reversal still lacks standardized and optimized treatment.</br> <b><br>Conclusions:</b> Ileostomy removal is a procedure with high risk of postoperative complications. Standardization of perioperative care based on further multicenter national study could result in a decrease of complications rate.</br>.

Comparison of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Pathway Versus Standard Care in Patients Undergoing Elective Stoma Reversal Surgery- A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Practices such as prolonged preoperative fasting, bowel preparation, delayed ambulation and resumption of orals result in morbidity in 15-20% of stoma reversal cases which can be improved by Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) pathways.

AIM

To evaluate the safety, feasibility and efficacy of ERAS pathway in patients undergoing elective loop ileostomy or colostomy reversal surgery METHODS: This was an open-labeled, superiority randomized controlled trial in which patients undergoing loop ileostomy or colostomy reversal were randomized to standard or ERAS care. Patients with ASA class ≥3, needing laparotomy for stoma reversal, cardiac, renal and neurological illnesses were excluded. Components of ERAS protocol included pre-operative carbohydrate loading, avoidance of mechanical bowel preparation, goal directed fluid therapy, avoidance of long-acting opioid anesthetics or analgesics, avoidance of drains, urinary catheter or nasogastric tube, early mobilization and early enteral feeding. The primary outcome was length of stay (LOS) while the secondary outcomes were postoperative recovery and morbidity parameters.

RESULTS

Forty patients each were randomized to standard care and ERAS. Demographic and laboratory parameters between the two groups were comparable. ERAS group patients had significantly reduced LOS (5.3 ± 0.3 vs 7 ± 2.6; mean difference: 1.73 ± 0.98; p=0.0008). Functional recovery was earlier in the ERAS group compared to the standard care group, such as early resolution of ileus (median-2 days; p<0.001), time to first stool (median-3 days; p=0.0002), time to the resumption of liquid diet (median-3 days; p<0.001) and solid diet (median-4 days; p<0.001). Surgical site infections (SSI) were significantly lesser in ERAS group (12.5% vs 32.5%; p=0.03) while postoperative nausea/vomiting (p=0.08), pulmonary complications (p=0.17) and urinary tract infections (p=0.56) were comparable in both groups.

CONCLUSION

ERAS pathways are feasible, safe and significantly reduces LOS in patients undergoing elective loop ileostomy or colostomy reversal surgery.

Day-case loop ileostomy reversal based on the community hospital joined enhanced recovery after surgery (CHJ-ERAS) program in China: Safe and feasible

BACKGROUND

This study was performed to determine the feasibility of Day-case loop ileostomy reversal (DLIR) in China based on the community hospital joined enhanced recovery after surgery (CHJ-ERAS) program.

METHOD

Patients who underwent loop ileostomy were enrolled in the CHJ-ERAS program for DLIR after rigorous evaluation. The primary outcome was the results of short-term follow-ups.

RESULTS

From August 2017 to April 2022, 216 patients have been enrolled in the CHJ-ERAS program for DLIR. After DLIR, 14 patients (14/216, 6.5%) have recorded 17 episodes of postoperative complications within 1 month after surgery, including 10 readmission and 2 reoperation. Compared with in-patient loop ileostomy reversal, DLIR based on CHJ-ERAS did not increase the postoperative complications and reoperations.

CONCLUSION

The CMJ-ERAS program for DLIR in our center is a safe and feasible alternative option for inpatient LIR and an acceptable transitional approach for the development of day-case DLIR in developing countries.

Short-stay compared to long-stay admissions for loop ileostomy reversals: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Short-stay admissions, with lengths of stay less than 24 h, are used for various surgeries without increasing adverse events. However, it is unclear if short-stay admissions would be safe for loop ileostomy reversals. This review aimed to compare outcomes between short (≤24 hours) and long (>24 hours) admissions for adults undergoing loop ileostomy reversals.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for studies comparing short- to long-stay admissions in adults undergoing loop ileostomy reversals. Meta-analyses were conducted for mortality, reoperation, readmission, and non-reoperative complications. Quality of evidence was assessed with grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluations (GRADE) guidelines.

RESULTS

Four observational studies enrolling 24,628 patients were included. Moderate certainty evidence suggests there is no difference in readmissions between short- and long-stay admissions (relative risk (RR) 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.28, p 0.86). Low certainty evidence demonstrates that short stays may reduce non-reoperative complications (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.62, p < 0.01). Very low certainty evidence demonstrates that there is no difference in reoperations between short and long stays (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.26 to 5.04, p 0.87).

CONCLUSIONS

Moderate certainty evidence demonstrates that there is no difference in readmission rates between short- and long-stay admissions for loop ileostomy reversals. Less robust evidence suggests equivalence in reoperations and a decrease in non-reoperative complications. Future prospective trials are required to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of short-stay admissions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=307381 Prospero (CRD42022307381), January 30, 2022.

Outcome of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocols in Patients Undergoing Small Bowel Surgery

Background and objective Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols are multimodal perioperative care pathways to help patients achieve early recovery after surgical procedures. However, no evidence could be found about its role in patients undergoing small bowel surgery. This study's objective was to determine the outcome of applying ERAS protocols in patients undergoing small bowel surgery. Materials and methods This study was a descriptive case series conducted in the Department of Surgery at Services Hospital in Lahore, Pakistan, from September 2017 to August 2019. One hundred forty patients who underwent small bowel resection anastomosis were subjected to ERAS protocols. Written informed consent was received from all patients. Results The mean age of the patients was 34.1 ± 7.1 years. There were 101 (72.1%) men and 39 (27.9%) women in the study sample. The mean length of postoperative hospital stay was 4.59 ± 1.69 days. Postoperative wound infection occurred in six (4.3%) patients, while anastomotic leakage was observed in 12 (8.6%) patients. Five (3.6%) patients died within 30 days of surgery. A significantly increased length of postoperative hospital stay was associated with anastomotic leakage (9.08 ± 1.975 vs. 4.16 ± 0.83 days; p=0.00). Similarly, the frequency of wound infection (41.7% vs. 0.8%; p=0.00) and 30-day patient mortality (41.7% vs. 0%; p=0.00) was also significantly higher among those patients who acquired anastomotic leakage. Conclusion ERAS protocols were associated with a significant reduction in length of hospital stay of the patients undergoing small bowel surgery without any significant increase is anastomotic leakage, wound infection or mortality. Furthermore, anastomotic leakage occurred in the patients was significantly associated with a longer hospital stay, wound infection, and 30-day mortality. Therefore, ERAS protocols can be safely applied to small bowel surgery.

Protective Loop Ileostomy Closure Techniques: Comparison of Three Different Surgical Techniques

Objective

Anastomotic leaks can be very dangerous in colorectal cancers. Protective loop ileostomy is life-saving in low anterior rectal tumors to prevent pelvic sepsis. The aim of this study is to compare early morbidities for stapled, handsewn closure (end to end) or handsewn closure (anterior wall only) of loop ileostomy, and to further assess efficacy and safety for each technique. 

Methods

Patients who underwent loop ileostomy closure from January 2014 and December 2019 retrospectively were analyzed. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine the effect of the potential risk factors on the rate of each complication. The patients were divided into three groups based on the anastomoses. The first group included patients who had handsewn anterior closure; the second group included patients who had side-to-side anastomosis using linear stapler, and the third group included patients who had end-to-end handsewn anastomosis. The primary endpoint of the study was the postoperative 30 days. IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), version 22.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL) was used for statistical analysis.

Results

A total of 198 patients underwent reversal. There was a statistical difference between the handsewn anterior wall and stapler anastomosis in terms of postoperative ileus and wound infection. The handsewn group was superior to anastomosis with stapler (p: 0.027 and p: 0.042, respectively). A statistical difference was found between handsewn anterior wall closure and handsewn end-to-end anastomosis in terms of postoperative ileus, wound infection, and postoperative hospital stay (p: 0.013, p: 0.037, and p: 0.046, respectively). When stapled anastomosis and handsewn end-to-end anastomosis techniques were compared, a statistical difference was found in terms of postoperative ileus risk (p: 0.043), but no significant difference was found in terms of postoperative wound infection and hospital stay.

Conclusions

There was no significant difference in the rate of anastomotic leakage between the handsewn and stapled techniques. The rate of small-bowel obstruction was higher in the handsewn group. As a result, in this study, it was revealed that the handsewn anterior wall closure technique is the best among all ileostomy closure techniques.

Predictors of complications from stoma closure in elective colorectal surgery: an assessment from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACSNSQIP)

BACKGROUND

There is significant morbidity after diverting ileostomy closure, so identifying predictors of complications could be of great benefit. The aim of our study was to evaluate the incidence and risk factors for postoperative morbidity after elective ileostomy closure.

METHODS

The ACS-NSQIP dataset was evaluated for elective ileostomy closures from 1/1/2015 to 12/31/2016. Demographic characteristics, operative, and postoperative outcomes were evaluated. The primary outcome was 30-day major morbidity (Clavien class III and greater). Secondary outcomes were rates and predictors of major morbidity, superficial site infection (SSI), reoperation, and readmission from multivariate logistic regression modeling.

RESULTS

We retrospectively evaluated 1885 patients. The median operative time was 65 (IQR 50-90) minutes and median length of stay was 3 (IQR 2-5) days. Major morbidity was recorded in 6.7%, including mortality (1.0%), deep/organ space SSI (2.6%), dehiscence (0.8%), reintubation (0.5%), sepsis (1.7%), septic shock (0.8%), and reoperation (3.7%). Readmission was recorded in 9.7% and 6.2% had SSI. Multivariate logistic regression showed male sex (OR 1.584; 95% CI 1.068-2.347; p = 0.022) and longer operative time (OR 1.004; 95% CI 1.001-1.007; p = 0.009) were among those variables associated with increased odds of major morbidity. Dyspnea (OR 2.431; 95% CI 1.139-5.094; p = 0.021) and longer operative time (OR 1.003; 95% CI 1.001-1.007; p = 0.034) were among the independent risk factors for SSI. Male sex (OR 2.246; 95% CI 1.297-3.892; p = 0.004, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR 2.959; 95% CI 1.153-7.591; p = 0.024), and longer operative time (OR 1.005; 95% CI 1.001-1.009; p = 0.011) were associated with increased odds of reoperation. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR 2.578; 95% CI 1.338-4.968; p = 0.005), wound infection (OR 2.680; 95% CI 1.043-6.890; p = 0.041), and inflammatory bowel disease (OR 2.565; 95% CI 1.203-5.463; p = 0.015) were associated with increased odds of readmission.

CONCLUSIONS

Elective stoma closure has significant risk of morbidity. Patients with longer operative times were at increased risk for major morbidity, overall SSI, and reoperation. From the analysis, factors specifically associated with major morbidity, overall infectious complications, readmissions, and reoperations were identified. This information can be used to prospectively prepare for these high-risk patients, potentially improving postoperative outcomes.

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.

Review of an emergency general surgery process improvement program at a verified military trauma center

INTRODUCTION

Decreasing combat-based admissions to our military facility have made it difficult to maintain a robust trauma process improvement (PI) program. Since emergency general surgery (EGS) and trauma patients share similarities, we merged the care of our EGS and trauma patients into one acute care surgery (ACS) team. An EGS PI program was developed based on trauma PI principles to facilitate continued identification of opportunities for improvement despite our decline in trauma admissions. Analysis of the first 18 months of combined ACS PI data is presented.

METHODS

EGS registry inclusion criteria was based on published Association for the Surgery of Trauma's recommendations. Program components and PI categories were based on our existing trauma PI program. Dedicated coordinators actively reviewed and cataloged patient care and outcomes. Deviations from standard practice patterns, unplanned interventions, and other complications were abstracted, categorized, and evaluated through levels of review similar to accepted trauma PI principles. Data for the first six quarters were collated and trends were analyzed.

RESULTS

Over 18 months, 696 EGS patients met registry inclusion criteria, with 468 patients (67%) undergoing operative intervention. Over the same time, 353 trauma patients were admitted with 158 undergoing operative intervention (56.4%). Of the 696 EGS patients and 353 trauma patients, 226 (32%) and 243 (69%) PI events were identified, respectively. Common events included unplanned therapies, re-admissions, and unplanned ICU admissions. Based on analysis of all events, four new areas for improvement initiatives were identified. Results of these initiatives included implementation of a multi-disciplinary EGS PI committee, consensus protocols, and departmental and hospital-wide actions.

CONCLUSION

In an 18-month period, integration of our EGS patients into a novel, combined ACS PI program facilitated recognition of an additional 226 PI events and provided a substrate for continued improvements in patient care.

Risk Factors for Postoperative Complications Following Diverting Loop Ileostomy Takedown

INTRODUCTION

Diverting loop ileostomies are frequently created to divert the fecal stream in an effort to protect downstream anastomoses. These are later reversed to restore intestinal continuity. The goal of this study is to evaluate risk factors for postoperative complications following diverting loop ileostomy takedown.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent diverting loop ileostomy takedown between January 1, 2010 and April 28, 2015 were identified in the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative registry. Candidate covariates were identified and a hierarchical logistic regression model was used to identify risk factors for postoperative complications.

RESULTS

1,737 patients met the inclusion criteria. Rates of postoperative complications were generally low. Mean length of stay (LOS) was 5.6 (± 4.5) days. Outcomes of interest were the following: overall morbidity, serious morbidity, extended LOS, SSI, UTI, pneumonia, readmission, reoperation, and mortality. Risk factors for these outcomes included the following: ASA class, bleeding disorder, prolonged operative time, race, tobacco use, gender, steroid use, peripheral vascular disease, weight loss, and functional status.

CONCLUSIONS

Diverting loop ileostomy takedown has a complication rate of approximately 20%. Higher ASA class, longer operative times, history of bleeding disorder, and functional status were identified as risk factors for most complications.

Loop Ileostomy Closure as an Overnight Procedure: Institutional Comparison With the National Surgical Quality Improvement Project Data Set

BACKGROUND

Enhanced recovery pathways have decreased length of stay after colorectal surgery. Loop ileostomy closure remains a challenge, because patients experience high readmission rates, and validation of enhanced recovery pathways has not been demonstrated. This study examined a protocol whereby patients were discharged on the first postoperative day and instructed to advance their diet at home with close telephone follow-up.

OBJECTIVE

The hypothesis was that patients can be safely discharged the day after loop closure, leading to shorter length of stay without increased rates of readmission or complications.

DESIGN

Patients undergoing loop ileostomy closure were queried from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project and compared with a single institution (2012-2015). Length of stay, 30-day readmission, and 30-day morbidity data were analyzed.

SETTINGS

The study was conducted at a tertiary university department.

PATIENTS

The study includes 1602 patients: 1517 from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Project database and 85 from a single institution.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Length of stay and readmission rates were measured.

RESULTS

Median length of stay was less at the single institution compared with control (2 vs 4 d; p < 0.001). Thirty-day readmission (15.3% vs 10.4%; p = 0.15) and overall 30-day complications (15.3% vs 16.7%; p = 0.73) were similar between cohorts. Estimated adjusted length of stay was less in the single institution (2.93 vs 5.58 d; p < 0.0001). There was no difference in the odds of readmission (p = 0.22).

LIMITATIONS

The main limitations of this study include its retrospective nature and limitations of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database.

CONCLUSIONS

Next-day discharge with protocoled diet advancement and telephone follow-up is acceptable after loop ileostomy closure. Patients can benefit from decreased length of stay without an increase in readmission or complications. This has the potential to change the practice of postoperative management of loop ileostomy closure, as well as to decrease cost. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A310.

The safety and feasibility of early discharge following ileostomy reversal: a National Surgical Quality Improvement Program analysis

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to compare 30-day clinical outcomes following routine ileostomy reversal between patients that underwent early discharge (<24 h) and standard discharge (postoperative day [POD] 2 or 3).

METHODS

A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted between 2005 and 2014 using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data set. All patients undergoing ileostomy reversal who were discharged on POD 0 or 1 (early discharge group [EDG]) versus POD 2 or 3 (standard discharge group [SDG]) were identified. The primary outcome was the 30-day adverse event rate. The secondary outcome was the 30-day readmission rate. A multivariate analysis was performed to determine the adjusted effect of early discharge as well as the predictors of adverse events and readmissions.

RESULTS

The study population consisted of 355 and 5805 patients in the EDG and SDG, respectively. There were 19 (5.4%) 30-day adverse events in the EDG and 341 (5.8%) in the SDG. The EDG had 17 (4.8%) 30-day readmissions and the SDG had 294 (5.1%). The adjusted odds ratio for 30-day adverse events in the EDG was 0.95 (P = 0.83), and for 30-day readmissions, it was 1.01 (P = 0.96). Higher BMI, longer operative time, ASA ≥3, chronic steroid use along with a history of bleeding disorder were significant predictors for adverse events and readmissions.

CONCLUSIONS

Select patients discharged within 24 h of ileostomy reversal did not have a significantly higher rate of adverse events or readmissions compared to patients discharged on POD 2 or 3 following uncomplicated surgery. Predictors of adverse events and readmissions can guide the selection of patients suitable for early discharge.

Ileostomy closure in an enhanced recovery setting

AIM

Hospital stays of 5 days or more are not uncommon following ileostomy closure, yet within an enhanced recovery programme (ERP) it is possible for patients to be discharged on the first postoperative day following anterior resection. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the introduction of an ERP for ileostomy closure reduced hospital stay without affecting morbidity or readmission rates.

METHOD

Consecutive patients undergoing elective ileostomy closure from October 2000 to March 2013 were included in this study. The data were collected prospectively into a database. Enhanced recovery was introduced for all elective ileostomy closures in June 2010. Demographic data, length of stay (LOS), readmission, morbidity and mortality were compared between the two groups using the Mann-Whitney U-test and Fisher's exact test.

RESULTS

One hundred and forty-five patients underwent elective ileostomy closure during the study period (37 ERP and 108 pre-ERP). There were no differences between the two groups with respect to demographics, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, prior radiotherapy or chemotherapy, operative time, body mass index, antibiotic use or closure method. Readmission rates (5% vs 6.5%, P = 1.0), morbidity (8% vs 10%, P = 1.0) and mortality (0% vs 0%) were not significantly different. Median (2 vs 4 days, P < 0.0001) and mean (3.4 vs 5.6 days, P = 0.033) LOS were significantly shorter in the ERP group compared with the pre-ERP group.

CONCLUSION

An ERP for closure of ileostomy significantly reduces LOS without adverse effects for patients.

Day-case closure of ileostomy: feasible, safe and efficient

AIM

Over 5000 loop ileostomy closures were performed in the UK in 2013 with a median inpatient stay of 5 days. Previously we have successfully implemented a 23-h protocol for loop ileostomy closure which was modified for same-day discharge. We present our early experience of day-case loop ileostomy closure.

METHOD

A specific patient pathway for day-case discharge following loop ileostomy closure was implemented with inclusion criteria to conform with British Association of Day Surgery guidelines. Exclusion criteria included postoperative chemoradiotherapy, multiple comorbidities and social care needs. Follow-up consisted of telephone contact (24 and 72 h after discharge) and a routine outpatient appointment. Patients were provided with a 24-h contact point in case of emergency.

RESULTS

Fifteen (12 male) patients were enrolled of median age 67 (39-80) years. The median operating time was 41 (23-80) min. The indication for ileostomy formation was to cover a low anterior resection for adenocarcinoma (13), reversal of Hartmann's procedure (1) and functional bowel disorder (1). The median interval from the primary procedure to day-case loop ileostomy closure was 8 (3-14) months. Every patient was discharged on the day of surgery. There were no complications related to the surgery and there was one readmission due to a urinary tract infection. The median length of follow-up was 4 (2-16) months.

CONCLUSION

Our early experience shows that day-case loop ileostomy closure is feasible, safe and efficient. This protocol will become standard within our institution for suitable patients, saving on average five inpatient bed days per patient.

Complications after Loop Ileostomy Closure: A Retrospective Analysis of 132 Patients

BACKGROUND

Closure of a loop ileostomy is a relatively simple procedure although many studies have demonstrated high morbidity rates following it. Methods to reduce the number of complications, such as timing of closure or different surgical closure techniques, are investigated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the experience of the Abdominal Surgery Center at Vilnius University Hospital (VUH) 'Santariskiu klinikos' to review the complications after closure of loop ileostomy and to identify potential risk factors for postoperative complications.

METHODS

Data from 132 patients who underwent closure of loop ileostomy from 2003 to 2013 at the Abdominal Surgery Center of VUH were collected, including demographics, causes of ileostomy formation, additional diseases, time from creation to closure of ileostomy, anastomotic technique, duration of the operation, postoperative complications, and hospital stay after surgery. The operations were performed by 15 surgeons with varying experience assisted by surgical residents. Experience in ileostomy closure was defined by the number of procedures performed.

RESULTS

Complications occurred in 24 patients (18.2%), with 20 of them having surgical complications: bowel obstruction (9 (6.8%)), wound infection (4 (3.0%)), peritonitis due to anastomotic leak (3 (2.3%)), intra-abdominal abscess (2 (1.5%)), anastomotic leak with enterocutaneous fistula (1 (0.76%)), and bleeding (1 (0.76%)). 4 patients had non-surgical complications: postoperative diarrhea (2 (1.5%)), urinary retention (1 (0.76%)), and deep vein thrombosis (1 (0.76%)). Most complications were classified as group II according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. 2 patients died (1.5%). The anastomotic technique used did not affect the outcome. The experience of the surgeon as judged by the frequency of the procedure was the main factor affecting postoperative morbidity significantly (p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

Our study revealed that the rate of postoperative complications and a smooth postoperative course after the closure of ileostomy was influenced by surgical experience.

Morbidity of loop ileostomy closure after restorative proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis and familial adenomatous polyposis: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Temporary loop ileostomy is a routine procedure to reduce the morbidity of restorative proctocolectomy. However, morbidity of ileostomy closure could reduce the benefit of this concept. The objective of this systematic review was to assess the risks of ileostomy closure after restorative proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis or familial adenomatous polyposis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Publications in English or German language reporting morbidity of ileostomy closure after restorative proctocolectomy were identified by Medline search. Two hundred thirty-two publications were screened, 143 were assessed in full-text, and finally 26 studies (reporting 2146 ileostomy closures) fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Weighted means for overall morbidity and mortality of ileostomy closure, rate of redo operations, anastomotic dehiscence, bowel obstruction, wound infection, and late complications were calculated.

RESULTS

Overall morbidity of ileostomy closure was 16.5 %, there was no mortality. Redo operations for complications were necessary in 3.0 %. Anastomotic dehiscence occurred in 2.0 %. Postoperative bowel obstruction developed in 7.6 %, with 2.9 % of patients requiring laparotomy for this complication. Wound infection rate was 4.0 %. Hernia or bowel obstruction as late complications developed in 1.9 and 9.4 %, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The considerable morbidity of ileostomy reversal reduces the overall benefit of temporary fecal diversion. However, ileostomy creation is still recommended, as it effectively reduces the risk of pouch-related septic 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.

Identifying causes for high readmission rates after stoma reversal

BACKGROUND

Unplanned readmissions after colorectal surgery impact patient and financial outcomes. Our goal was to identify factors related to readmission in ostomy reversal patients.

METHODS

Review of a prospective department database was performed from 2006 to 2012 to identify patients who underwent an ostomy reversal. Patients were stratified into nonreadmitted and readmitted within 30 days of ostomy reversal. The main outcome measures were predictors of readmission and characteristics of patients readmitted and not readmitted.

RESULTS

A total of 351 ostomy reversals (86 % ileostomy and 14 % colostomy) were analyzed; 44 patients were readmitted (12.5 %). Readmitted and nonreadmitted patients were similar in age, body mass index, gender, comorbidities, indications for the index operation, and time to ostomy reversal. Readmitted patients had longer operative times (p = 0.002) and length of stay (p = 0.001), more intraoperative blood loss (p = 0.003), intraoperative complications (p = 0.005), ICU requirements (p < 0.0001), need for temporary nursing at discharge (p < 0.001), and higher total hospital costs than nonreadmitted patients (p = 0.0162). Longer operative time [odds ratio (OR) 1.006, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.001-1.012], intraoperative complications (OR 7.334, 95 % CI 1.23-43.761), ICU stay (OR 1.291, 95 % CI 1.18-1.893), delayed discharge (OR 1.085, 95 % CI 1.003-1.173), and discharge to skilled nursing facility (OR 6.936, 95 % CI 1.531-31.332) were independent predictors of readmission. Ostomy type had no independent effect on readmission.

CONCLUSIONS

Differences in perioperative and outcomes variables exist between readmitted and nonreadmitted patients after ostomy reversal. Longer operative times, intraoperative complications, intensive care unit care, longer length of stay, and skilled nursing at discharge were independently predictive of readmission. These findings can be used to identify high-risk patients prospectively, potentially improving clinical outcomes and healthcare utilization.

Liposome bupivacaine (EXPAREL®) for extended pain relief in patients undergoing ileostomy reversal at a single institution with a fast-track discharge protocol: an IMPROVE Phase IV health economics trial

Background

Postoperative opioid use following ileostomy reversal procedures contributes to postoperative ileus. We assessed the impact of a liposome bupivacaine-based, opioid-sparing multimodal analgesia regimen versus a standard opioid-based analgesia regimen on postsurgical opioid use. We also assessed health economic outcomes in patients undergoing ileostomy reversal at our institution, which employs an enhanced recovery discharge protocol.

Methods

In this single-center, open-label study, patients undergoing ileostomy reversal received postsurgical pain therapy via multimodal analgesia that included a single intraoperative administration of liposome bupivacaine or opioid-based patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with intravenous morphine or hydromorphone. Rescue analgesia (intravenous [IV] opioids and/or oral opioid + acetaminophen) was available to all patients. Primary efficacy measures included postsurgical opioid use, hospital length of stay (LOS), and hospitalization costs. Secondary measures included: time to first rescue opioid use; patient satisfaction with analgesia; additional medical intervention; and opioid-related adverse events.

Results

Forty-three patients were enrolled and met eligibility criteria (IV opioid PCA group = 20; liposome bupivacaine-based multimodal analgesia group = 23). Postsurgical opioid use was significantly less in the multimodal analgesia group compared with the IV opioid PCA group (mean [standard deviation]: 38 mg [46 mg] versus 68 mg [47 mg]; P = 0.004). Postsurgical LOS between-group differences (median: 3.0 days versus 3.8 days) and geometric mean hospitalization costs (US $6,611 versus US$6,790) favored the multimodal analgesic group but did not achieve statistical significance. Median time to first opioid use was 1.1 hours versus 0.7 hours in the multimodal analgesia and IV opioid PCA groups, respectively; P = 0.035. Two patients in the multimodal analgesia group and one in the IV opioid PCA group experienced opioid-related adverse events.

Conclusion

A liposome bupivacaine-based multimodal analgesic regimen reduced postoperative opioid consumption in patients undergoing ileostomy reversal under a fast-track discharge protocol. A reduction of 21% in LOS (0.8 days) was noted which, although not statistically significant, may be considered clinically meaningful given the already aggressive fast-track discharge program.

An extended paIn relief trial utilizing the infiltration of a long-acting Multivesicular liPosome foRmulation Of bupiVacaine, EXPAREL (IMPROVE): a Phase IV health economic trial in adult patients undergoing ileostomy reversal

BACKGROUND

Opioid analgesics are effective for postsurgical pain but are associated with opioid-related adverse events, creating a significant clinical and economic burden. Gastrointestinal surgery patients are at high risk for opioid-related adverse events. We conducted a study to assess the impact of an opioid-sparing multimodal analgesia regimen with liposome bupivacaine, compared with the standard of care (intravenous [IV] opioid-based, patient-controlled analgesia [PCA]) on postsurgical opioid use and health economic outcomes in patients undergoing ileostomy reversal.

METHODS

In this open-label, multicenter study, sequential cohorts of patients undergoing ileostomy reversal received IV opioid PCA (first cohort); or multimodal analgesia including a single intraoperative administration of liposome bupivacaine (second cohort). Rescue analgesia was available to all patients. Primary outcome measures were postsurgical opioid use, hospital length of stay, and hospitalization costs. Incidence of opioid-related adverse events was also assessed.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven patients were enrolled, underwent the planned surgery, and did not meet any intraoperative exclusion criteria; 16 received liposome bupivacaine-based multimodal analgesia and eleven received the standard IV opioid PCA regimen. The multimodal regimen was associated with significant reductions in opioid use compared with the IV opioid PCA regimen (mean, 20 mg versus 112 mg; median, 6 mg versus 48 mg, respectively; P < 0.01), postsurgical length of stay (median, 3.0 days versus 5.1 days, respectively; P < 0.001), and hospitalization costs (geometric mean, $6482 versus $9282, respectively; P = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

A liposome bupivacaine-based multimodal analgesic regimen resulted in statistically significant and clinically meaningful reductions in opioid consumption, shorter length of stay, and lower inpatient costs than an IV opioid-based analgesic regimen.

Influence of neoadjuvant radiotherapy on anastomotic leak after restorative resection for rectal cancer

PURPOSE

This study was undertaken to determine whether neoadjuvant radiotherapy is associated with an increased risk of anastomotic leak for rectal cancer patients undergoing restorative resection.

METHODS

From 1980 to 2010, patients who underwent restorative resection for rectal cancer (tumors within 15 cm of anal verge) were identified from a prospective institutional database and grouped based on whether they received neoadjuvant radiotherapy (+RT) or not (-RT). The main outcome was anastomotic leak documented by imaging (contrast leak), intra-operative or clinical (signs of peritonitis) findings and confirmed by staff surgeon assessment. Using multivariate (MV) analysis risk factors for leak were identified, presented as OR (95 % CI).

RESULTS

One thousand eight hundred sixty-two patients were included in the analysis, 28 % in the +RT group. Eighty-six percent of +RT patients received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. The overall leak rate was 6.3 %, with no significant difference in +RT and -RT groups (8 % vs 5.7 %, p = 0.06). The +RT group had a lower mean age at surgery (58 vs 63 year, p < 0.001), more male (75 % vs 62 %, p < 0.001) and more ASA 3/4 (44 % vs 35 %, p < 0.001) patients, greater use of defunctioning ostomy (87 % vs 44 %, p < 0.001) and colo-anal anastomosis (77 % vs 34 %, p < 0.001). Mean tumor distance from the anal verge was lower in +RT group (6.6 vs 9.7 cm, p < 0.001). On MV analysis, male sex (OR 1.64 (1.03-2.62), p = 0.038), ASA 4 (OR 4.70 (2.07-10.7), p < 0.001), tumor distance from anal verge ≤ 5 cm (OR 2.49 (1.37-4.52), p = 0.003), and tumor size at surgery ≥ 4 cm (OR 1.75 (1.15-2.65), p = 0.009) were independently associated with leak. +RT was not independently associated with leak (OR 1.44 (0.85-2.46), p = 0.18), while defunctioning ostomy did not reduce leak occurrence (OR 0.75 (0.44-1.28), p = 0.29).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggest that neoadjuvant radiotherapy is not independently associated with an anastomotic leak for rectal cancer patients undergoing restorative resection and support a selective policy towards the use of a defunctioning ostomy on a case by case basis based on intra-operative judgment and consideration of tumor location, size, and patient characteristics.

Fifty ways to reduce length of stay: an inventory of how hospital staff would reduce the length of stay in their hospital

PURPOSE AND SETTING

In this study we present a bottom up approach to developing interventions to shorten lengths of stay. Between 1999 and 2009 we applied the approach in 21 Dutch clinical wards in 12 hospitals. We present the complete inventory of all interventions.

DESIGN

We organised, on the hospital ward level, structured meetings with the staff in order to first identify barriers to reduce the length of stay and then later to link them to interventions. The key components of the approach were a benchmark with the fifteenth percentile and the use of a matrix, that on one side was arranged along the main phases of the care process--the admission, stay and discharge--and on the other side to the degree to which the length of stay could be shortened by the medical specialists and nurses themselves or by involving others.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The matrix consists of a wide variety of interventions that mainly cover what we found in published research. As a bottom up approach is more likely to succeed, we would advise wards that have to reduce length of stay to make the inventory themselves, using appropriate benchmark data, and by using the matrix.

Closure of loop ileostomy: potentially a daycase procedure?

BACKGROUND

Four thousand four hundred and twenty-seven ileostomy closures were performed in the UK in 2008-2009, (35,432 bed days). None were recorded as being performed as a daycase procedure. Our aim is to evaluate the morbidity and mortality associated with this procedure and to investigate whether daycase surgery is feasible.

METHOD

Patients having closure of loop ileostomy were identified retrospectively from May 2005 to July 2010. The primary surgery, method of ileostomy closure, length of hospital stay and early (≤30 days) or late (>30 days) complications were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 138 patients were evaluated. The median age was 63 (17-83) years and 64% were male patients. The primary surgery was predominantly anterior resection (74%). Median time from initial surgery to reversal was 37 (1-117) weeks. The median length of hospital stay was 4 (1-39) days. Applying a 23-h discharge protocol to our results excluded 18 patients categorised as ASA3. Ninety-six patients (80%) met the discharge criteria for a potential 23-h hospital stay. The expected readmission rate within 30 days of surgery was 12% (n = 14). 85 patients (71%) did not suffer an early complication. There were 35 early complications (30%), 10 general and 25 specific to the procedure, but serious only in 5%. There were no deaths in the eligible patients.

CONCLUSION

Closure of loop ileostomy in our series is safe, with a low serious morbidity rate. It may be feasible to perform reversal of ileostomy as a daycase/23-h stay. We intend to implement a 23-h stay for reversal of ileostomy.

[Diagnosis and definition of anastomotic leakage from the surgeon's perspective]

The leak rates of different gastrointestinal anastomoses vary considerably but despite this there are common and general concepts for diagnosis and management. Early diagnosis and timely consistent therapy must guide management to prevent harm to the patients. Diagnosis of anastomotic leaks is coupled to clinical signs of the patients and should be initiated promptly. Dependent on the localization of the leak, computed tomography with administration of oral or rectal contrast dye and endoscopy are of high diagnostic value. Both procedures guarantee the option of drainage or stenting through interventional drains or stent placement. Only the implementation of uniform definitions of anastomotic leaks enables surgeons to compare and to improve surgical treatment. Over recent years consensus definitions of postoperative complications including bile leak, pancreatic fistula and colorectal leak have been formulated. These definitions are based on a 3-fold increase of bilirubin (bile leak) or amylase levels (pancreatic fistula) in abdominal drainage fluid compared to serum levels or on an intestinal wall defect with communication of the intraluminal and extraluminal compartments (colorectal anastomosis). The definitions each describe three severity grades A-C. A change of clinical management is required in grade B whereas grade C usually requires a re-operation. Comparable consensus definitions for anastomotic leaks following esophagogastrostomy or esophagojejunostomy or following small bowel anastomosis have not been established. The authors strongly recommend implementation of the presented consensus definitions into clinical and academic daily practice.