Meta-analysis of elective surgical complications related to defunctioning loop ileostomy compared with loop colostomy after low anterior resection for rectal carcinoma

Advanced Hybrid Strategies of GelMA Composite Hydrogels in Bone Defect Repair

To date, severe bone defects remain a significant challenge to the quality of life. All clinically used bone grafts have their limitations. Bone tissue engineering offers the promise of novel bone graft substitutes. Various biomaterial scaffolds are fabricated by mimicking the natural bone structure, mechanical properties, and biological properties. Among them, gelatin methacryloyl (GelMA), as a modified natural biomaterial, possesses a controllable chemical network, high cellular stability and viability, good biocompatibility and degradability, and holds the prospect of a wide range of applications. However, because they are hindered by their mechanical properties, degradation rate, and lack of osteogenic activity, GelMA hydrogels need to be combined with other materials to improve the properties of the composites and endow them with the ability for osteogenesis, vascularization, and neurogenesis. In this paper, we systematically review and summarize the research progress of GelMA composite hydrogel scaffolds in the field of bone defect repair, and discuss ways to improve the properties, which will provide ideas for the design and application of bionic bone substitutes.

Feasibility and outcomes of robotic sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant treatment in patients with preexisting colostomy

BACKGROUND

Diverting colostomy followed by neoadjuvant treatment is a treatment of choice for obstructive rectal cancer. Such patients may be treated via a robotic approach with several advantages over conventional laparoscopic surgery. Conversely, the existing stoma may interfere with the optimal trocar position and thus affect the quality of robotic surgery. Moreover, the console surgeon does not face the patient, which may endanger the stoma.

METHODS

Patients with rectal cancer who underwent sphincter-preserving surgery were retrospectively investigated using a robotic platform after neoadjuvant treatment at our hospital. Based on pretreatment stoma creation, patients were divided into the NS (those without a stoma) and S groups (patients with a stoma). Baseline characteristics, types of neoadjuvant treatment, short-term surgical outcomes, postoperative anorectal manometric data, and survival were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

The NS and S groups comprised 65 and 9 patients, respectively. Conversion to laparotomy was required in three patients in the NS group. The S group required a longer console time than the NS group (median: 367 vs. 253 min, respectively, p = 0.038); however, no difference was observed in the total operative time (p = 0.15) and blood loss (p = 0.70). Postoperative complication rates, anorectal function, and oncological outcomes were similar between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Although console time was longer in patients with a stoma, robotic surgery could be performed safely like in those without a stoma after neoadjuvant treatment.

The Role of Colon in Isolated Intestinal Transplantation: Description of 4 Cases

Intra-abdominal desmoid tumors are a rare and complex clinical problem. These tumors are locally invasive, and surgical ablation represents the mainstay of treatment. When localized at the root of the mesentery, their resection may require extensive excision of the intestine resulting in intestinal failure and life-long total parenteral nutrition. Intestinal transplantation, either autotransplantation or allotransplantation, has been used as a viable option to treat this group of patients. Herein, we describe a series of 4 patients with unresectable intra-abdominal desmoid tumor who underwent cadaveric isolated intestinal and ascending colon transplantation.

Complications of preventive loop ileostomy versus colostomy: a meta-analysis, trial sequential analysis, and systematic review

BACKGROUND

Preventive colostomy is required for colorectal surgery, and the incidence of complications associated with ileostomy and colostomy remains controversial. This study aimed to compare the incidence of postoperative complications between ileostomy and colostomy procedures.

METHODS

Data analysis was conducted on 30 studies, and meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA) were performed on five studies. The basic indicators, such as stoma prolapse, leak, wound infection, ileus, and a series of other indicators, were compared.

RESULTS

No statistically significant differences were observed with complications other than stoma prolapse. Meta-analysis and TSA showed that the incidence of ileostomy prolapse was lower than that of colostomy prolapse, and the difference was statistically significant. Apart from the four complications listed above, the general data analysis showed differences in incidence between the two groups. The incidence of skin irritation, parastomal hernia, dehydration, pneumonia, and urinary tract infections was higher with ileostomy than with colostomy. In contrast, the incidence of parastomal fistula, stenosis, hemorrhage, and enterocutaneous fistula was higher with colostomy than with ileostomy.

CONCLUSIONS

There were differences in the incidence of ileostomy and colostomy complications in the selected studies, with a low incidence of ileostomy prolapse.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022303133.

Ileostomy versus colostomy: impact on functional outcomes after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer

AIM

Even if a defunctioning stoma mitigates the serious consequences of anastomotic leakage after total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer, the presence of a temporary stoma or having a stoma for a prolonged period of time may also be a determining factor for further morbidities and poor bowel function. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of diverting stomas on clinical and functional outcomes after TME, comparing ileostomy or colostomy effects.

METHODS

All consecutive patients who underwent TME for rectal cancer between March 2017 and December 2020 in three Italian referral centres were enrolled in the present study. For every patient sex, age, stage of the tumour, neoadjuvant therapy, surgical technique, anastomotic technique, the presence of a diverting stoma, perioperative complications and functional postoperative status were recorded. Considering the diverting stoma, the kind of stoma, length of time before closure and stoma related complications were evaluated.

RESULTS

During the study period 416 consecutive patients (63% men) were included. Preoperative neoadjuvant therapy was performed in 79%. A minimally invasive approach was performed in >95% of patients. Temporary stoma was performed during the operation in 387 patients (93%) (ileostomy 71%, colostomy 21%). The stoma was closed in 84% of patients. The median time from surgery to stoma closure was 145 days. No difference was found between ileostomy and colostomy in overall morbidity after stoma creation and closure. Moreover, increased postoperative functional disturbance seemed to be significantly proportional to the attending time for closure for ileostomy.

CONCLUSION

The presence of a defunctioning stoma seems to have a negative impact on functional bowel activity, especially for delayed closure for ileostomy. This should be considered when the kind of stoma (ileostomy vs. colostomy) is selected for each patient.

Essential updates 2020/2021: Advancing precision medicine for comprehensive rectal cancer treatment

In the paradigm shift related to rectal cancer treatment, we have to understand a variety of new emerging topics to provide appropriate treatment for individual patients as precision medicine. However, information on surgery, genomic medicine, and pharmacotherapy is highly specialized and subdivided, creating a barrier to achieving thorough knowledge. In this review, we summarize the perspective for rectal cancer treatment and management from the current standard-of-care to the latest findings to help optimize treatment strategy.

An empirical comparison of the harmful effects for randomized controlled trials and non-randomized studies of interventions

Introduction: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard to evaluate the efficacy of interventions (e.g., drugs and vaccines), yet the sample size of RCTs is often limited for safety assessment. Non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSIs) had been proposed as an important alternative source for safety assessment. In this study, we aimed to investigate whether there is any difference between RCTs and NRSIs in the evaluation of adverse events. Methods: We used the dataset of systematic reviews with at least one meta-analysis including both RCTs and NRSIs and collected the 2 × 2 table information (i.e., numbers of cases and sample sizes in intervention and control groups) of each study in the meta-analysis. We matched RCTs and NRSIs by their sample sizes (ratio: 0.85/1 to 1/0.85) within a meta-analysis. We estimated the ratio of the odds ratios (RORs) of an NRSI against an RCT in each pair and used the inverse variance as the weight to combine the natural logarithm of ROR (lnROR). Results: We included systematic reviews with 178 meta analyses, from which we confirmed 119 pairs of RCTs and NRSIs. The pooled ROR of NRSIs compared to that of RCTs was estimated to be 0.96 (95% confidence interval: 0.87 and 1.07). Similar results were obtained with different sample size subgroups and treatment subgroups. With the increase in sample size, the difference in ROR between RCTs and NRSIs decreased, although not significantly. Discussion: There was no substantial difference in the effects between RCTs and NRSIs in safety assessment when they have similar sample sizes. Evidence from NRSIs might be considered a supplement to RCTs for safety assessment.

Temporary loop ileostomy versus transverse colostomy for laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a retrospective study

PURPOSE

To compare the surgical outcomes of ileostomy vs. transverse colostomy and investigate which is more suitable for a diverting stoma.

METHODS

We assessed stoma-related complications and surgical outcomes, retrospectively, for 146 patients who underwent laparoscopic colorectal surgery with a temporary loop ileostomy or transverse colostomy. Complications after secondary stoma closure surgery were also analyzed.

RESULTS

After the primary surgery, the incidence of prolapse was significantly higher in the transverse colostomy group, whereas high-output stoma and skin irritation were seen more frequently in the ileostomy group. The median interval to stoma closure was shorter in the ileostomy group than in the transverse colostomy group (144 vs. 196 days). After secondary closure surgery, the incidence of wound infection was significantly higher in the transverse colostomy group than in the ileostomy group. None of the patients in the ileostomy group had severe complications. The median postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the ileostomy group than in the transverse colostomy group (10 vs. 13 days).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this study suggest that ileostomy should be the procedure of choice for short-term temporary diverting stoma, but that transverse colostomy is more appropriate for patients who require a long-term or permanent stoma.

Cost-effectiveness of Total Neoadjuvant Therapy With Short-Course Radiotherapy for Resectable Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer

IMPORTANCE

Short-course radiotherapy and total neoadjuvant therapy (SCRT-TNT) followed by total mesorectal excision (TME) has emerged as a new treatment paradigm for patients with locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma. However, the economic implication of this treatment strategy has not been compared with that of conventional long-course chemoradiotherapy (LCCRT) followed by TME with adjuvant chemotherapy.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of SCRT-TNT vs LCCRT in conjunction with TME for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A decision analytical model with a 5-year time horizon was constructed for patients with biopsy-proven, newly diagnosed, primary locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma treated with SCRT-TNT or LCCRT. Markov modeling was used to model disease progression and patient survival after treatment in 3-month cycles. Data on probabilities and utilities were extracted from the literature. Costs were evaluated from the Medicare payer's perspective in 2020 US dollars. Sensitivity analyses were performed for key variables. Data were collected from October 3, 2020, to January 20, 2021, and analyzed from November 15, 2020, to April 25, 2021.

EXPOSURES

Two treatment strategies, SCRT-TNT vs LCCRT with adjuvant chemotherapy, were compared.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and net monetary benefits. Effectiveness was defined as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Both costs and QALYs were discounted at 3% annually. Willingness-to-pay threshold was set at $50 000/QALY.

RESULTS

During the 5-year horizon, the total cost was $41 355 and QALYs were 2.21 for SCRT-TNT; for LCCRT, the total cost was $54 827 and QALYs were 2.12, resulting in a negative incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (-$141 256.77). The net monetary benefit was $69 300 for SCRT-TNT and $51 060 for LCCRT. Sensitivity analyses using willingness to pay at $100 000/QALY and $150 000/QALY demonstrated the same conclusion.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that SCRT-TNT followed by TME incurs lower cost and improved QALYs compared with conventional LCCRT followed by TME and adjuvant chemotherapy. These data offer further rationale to support SCRT-TNT as a novel cost-saving treatment paradigm in the management of locally advanced rectal cancer.

Risk Factors for Anastomotic Leak, Consideration for Proximal Diversion, and Appropriate Use of Drains

Anastomotic leaks are a major source of morbidity after colorectal surgery. There is a myriad of risk factors that may contribute to anastomotic leaks. These risk factors can be categorized as modifiable, nonmodifiable, and intraoperative factors. Identification of these risk factors allows for preoperative optimization that may minimize the risk of anastomotic leak. Knowledge of such high-risk features may also affect intraoperative decision-making regarding the creation of an anastomosis, consideration for proximal diversion, or placement of a drain. A thorough understanding of the interplay between risk factors, indications for proximal diversion, and utility of drain placement is imperative for colorectal surgeons.

Patient-Related Factors Associated With Stoma and Peristomal Complications Following Fecal Ostomy Surgery: A Scoping Review

PURPOSE

Ostomy creation is often an integral part of the surgical management of various diseases including colorectal malignancies and inflammatory bowel disease. Stoma and peristomal complications may occur in up to 70% of patients following ostomy surgery. The aim of this scoping literature review was to synthesize evidence on the risk factors for developing complications following creation of a fecal ostomy.

DESIGN

Scoping literature review.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Two independent researchers completed a search of the online bibliographic databases PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane, Google Scholar, and EMBASE for all articles published between January 1980 and December 2018. The search comprised multiple elements including systematic literature reviews with meta-analysis of pooled findings, randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, observational studies, other types of review articles, and multiple case reports. We screened 307 unique titles and abstracts; 68 articles met our eligibility criteria for inclusion. The methodological rigor of study quality included in our scoping review was variable.

FINDINGS/CONCLUSIONS

We identified 6 risk factors associated with an increased likelihood of stoma or peristomal complications (1) age more than 65 years; (2) female sex; (3) body mass index more than 25; (4) diabetes mellitus as a comorbid condition; (5) abdominal malignancy as the underlying reason for ostomy surgery; and (6) lack of preoperative stoma site marking and WOC/ostomy nurse specialist care prior to stoma surgery. We also found evidence that persons with a colostomy are at a higher risk for prolapse and parastomal hernia.

IMPLICATIONS

Health care professionals should consider these risk factors when caring for patients undergoing fecal ostomy surgery and manage modifiable factors whenever possible. For example, preoperative stoma site marking by an ostomy nurse or surgeon familiar with this task, along with careful perioperative ostomy care and education of the patient by an ostomy nurse specialist, are essential to reduce the risk of modifiable risk factors related to creation of a fecal ostomy.

Comparison of the clinical outcomes of skin bridge loop ileostomy and traditional loop ileostomy in patients with low rectal cancer

To compare the clinical results of patients with low rectal cancer who underwent skin bridge loop ileostomy and traditional loop ileostomy, and provide clinical evidence for choosing a better ostomy method. We retrospectively collected data of 118 patients with rectal cancer who underwent low anterior resection and loop ileostomy. To investigate the patients characteristics, postoperative stoma-related complications and the frequency of exchanged ostomy bags. The differences of these indicators between the two groups of patients who underwent skin bridge loop ileostomy and traditional loop ileostomy were compared. The Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score of the skin bridge loop ileostomy group was lower than that of the traditional ileostomy loop group (P < 0.05). The skin bridge group had a lower Discoloration, Erosion, Tissue overgrowth (DET) score and incidence of mucocutaneous separation than the traditional group at the 1st and 2nd weeks after operation (P < 0.05). The average number of weekly exchanged ostomy bags was significantly less in the skin bridge group than in the traditional group within 4 weeks after surgery (P < 0.05). Our experience demonstrates that the skin bridge loop ileostomy may significantly reduce early postoperative stoma-related complications, the frequency of exchanged ostomy bags and patients' medical costs after discharge.

A meta-analysis of the role of diverting ileostomy after rectal cancer surgery

PURPOSE

Anastomotic leak is a feared complication of rectal cancer surgery. A diverting stoma is believed to act as a safety mechanism against this undesirable outcome. This meta-analysis aimed to examine the role of loop ileostomy in the prevention of this complication.

METHODS

The Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing anastomotic complications after rectal cancer surgery in the presence or absence of diverting ileostomy. The need for reoperation and postoperative complications were also analysed. The length of hospital stay, intraoperative blood loss and operating time were analysed as secondary endpoints.

RESULTS

A significantly higher number of anastomotic leaks was detected in patients with no diverting ileostomies than in those with diversion (odds ratio (OR) 0.292 and 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.177-0.481), and more patients required reoperations in this group (OR 0.219 and 95% CI 0.114-0.422). The rate of complications other than anastomotic leak was significantly higher in patients with diverting ileostomies than in those without (OR 3.337 and 95% CI of 1.570-7.093). The operating time was longer in the ileostomy group than in the no ileostomy group (P 0.001), but no significant differences in the intraoperative blood loss or postoperative hospital stay length were observed between the two groups(P 0.199 and 0.191 respectively).

CONCLUSION

A lower leak rate in the presence of diverting ileostomy is supported by relatively weak evidence. While mitigating the consequences of leakage, diverting ileostomies lead to numerous other complications. High-quality RCTs are needed before routine ileostomy diversions can be recommended after rectal cancer surgery.

One-stitch method vs. traditional method of protective loop ileostomy for rectal cancer: the impact of BMI obesity

PURPOSE

Protective loop ileostomy is an effective diversion measure often used to reduce the risk of anastomotic leakage. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the surgical outcomes of the one-stitch method (OM) of protective loop ileostomy in laparoscopic low anterior resection for BMI obesity patients with rectal cancer compared with the traditional method (TM).

METHODS

The patients diagnosed as rectal adenocarcinoma cases by preoperative pathology were included in this retrospective study. The subjects underwent protective loop ileostomy in laparoscopic low anterior resection from January 2016 to June 2019 in the Shandong Provincial Hospital affiliated to Shandong University. The data of loop ileostomy and stoma closure operation were retrieved from the medical cases system of the hospital.

RESULTS

242 patients were included in the present study. In the BMI obese cohort, the OM group showed a shorter operative time both in the loop ileostomy (232.5 vs. 250.0 min, p = 0.04) and stoma closure operation (102.5 vs. 115.0 min, p = 0.001) and a lower peristomal adhesion extent (p = 0.02) and a shorter median postoperative stay (6 vs. 7 days, p = 0.03) during stoma closure operation than that of the TM group. In the TM group, obese cases showed a higher operative time of stoma closure operation (115.0 vs. 95.0, p < 0.001), a higher parastomal hernia rate (p = 0.04), a higher peristomal adhesion extent (p = 0.005) and a longer postoperative stay of stoma closure operation (p = 0.02) compared with the non-obese cases, while in the OM group, no significant differences were observed between the obese and non-obese cases in terms of the above-mentioned factors.

CONCLUSIONS

The OM exhibited more advantages than TM, notably in BMI obesity patients.

Postoperative morbidity and mortality after anterior resection with preventive diverting loop ileostomy versus loop colostomy for rectal cancer: A updated systematic review and meta-analysis

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the perioperative morbidity after anterior resection with diverting loop ileostomy (LI) versus colostomy (LC) and its reversal for rectal cancer. The studies on the application of loop ileostomy versus loop colostomy in anterior resection published from January 2000 to January 2020 were searched in the databases of Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane library, and Clinical trials. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies were included according to inclusion criteria. Eight studies (2 RCTs and 6 cohort studies) totaling 1451 patients (821 LI and 630 LC) were included in the meta-analysis. The morbidity related to stoma formation and closure did not demonstrate significant differences. Significantly more LCs were complicated by stoma prolapse & retraction (OR:0.26,95%CI:0.11-0.60,P = 0.001), parastomal hernia (OR = 0.52,95%CI:0.30-0.88, P = 0.01), surgical site infection (SSI) (OR = 0.24,95%CI:0.11-0.49,P < 0.0001) and incisional hernias (OR = 0.39,95%CI:0.19-0.83,P = 0.01) than by LIs. Patients with LI demonstrated significantly more complications related to the stoma, such as dehydration (OR = 0.52,95%CI:0.30-0.88, P = 0.01) and ileus (OR = 2.23,95%CI:1.12-4.43, P = 0.02) than patients with LC. While after the subgroup analysis of different publication years, LI could reduce the risk of the morbidity after stoma formation in previous years group (P = 0.04) with a lower heterogeneity (I² = 37%); LC could reduce the incidence of parastomal dermatitis in recent years group (P < 0.0001) without heterogeneity in each subgroup (I² = 0%). Cumulative meta-analysis detected significant turning points in dehydration, SSI, and ileus. This meta-analysis recommends diverting LI in the anterior resection for rectal cancer, but there is a risk of dehydration, irritant dermatitis, and ileus.

Minimally Invasive Correction of Prolapsed, Gangrenous Distal Limb of Loop Ileostomy to End-Loop Stoma

Introduction

Prolapse can be a complication of loop stomas. A prolapsed stoma which cannot be reduced or complicated with strangulation needs surgical correction. This case report describes a minimal access correction of a prolapsed gangrenous distal limb of ileostomy. Presentation of Case. A 67-year-old male patient was diagnosed with a lower rectal carcinoma, staged T3N1M0. Following neoadjuvant chemoradiation, he underwent a laparoscopic anterior resection with a defunctioning loop ileostomy. One month later, he presented with prolapse of the distal limb of the ileostomy. The limb was gangrenous and the gangrenous part was removed by using a linear GI stapler, and the loop ileostomy was converted to end-loop ileostomy. Discussion. It is a simple and technically feasible method for treating a prolapsed loop of the stoma. It is less invasive and has minimal postoperative complications. This technique reduces the duration of the hospital stay of the patient.

Conclusion

Stapled assisted correction of prolapsed stoma avoids unnecessary laparotomy and aids in expedite recovery after surgery. It is beneficial for a surgeon to be familiar with the minimal access correction for stoma prolapse.

Low preoperative maximum squeezing pressure evaluated by anorectal manometry is a risk factor for non-reversal of diverting stoma

PURPOSE

A diverting stoma is created to prevent anastomotic leakage and related complications impairing sphincteric function in rectal surgery. However, diverting stoma may be left unclosed. This study is aimed to analyze preoperative factors including anorectal manometric data associated with diverting stoma non-reversal before rectal surgery. We also addressed complications related to diverting stoma in patients undergoing surgery for rectal malignant tumor.

METHODS

A total of 203 patients with rectal malignant tumor who underwent sphincter-preserving surgery with diverting stoma were retrospectively evaluated. The risk factors for non-reversal of diverting stoma were identified by univariate and multivariate analyses. For these analyses, anorectal manometric data were measured before rectal surgery. The association between stoma-related complications and other clinicopathological features was also analyzed.

RESULTS

During the median follow-up of 46.4 months, 24% (49 patients) did not undergo stoma reversal. Among parameters that were available before rectal surgery, age ≥ 75 years, albumin < 3.5 g/dl, tumor size ≥ 30 mm, tumor distance from the anal verge < 4 cm, and maximum squeezing pressure (MSP) < 130 mmHg measured by anorectal manometry (ARM) were independent factors associated with stoma non-reversal. The most common stoma-related complication was peristomal skin irritation (25%). Ileostomy was the only factor associated with peristomal skin irritation.

CONCLUSION

The current study demonstrated that low preoperative MSP evaluated by ARM, old age, hypoalbuminemia, and a large tumor close to the anus were predictive of diverting stoma non-reversal. Stoma site should be well deliberated when patients have the aforementioned risk factors for diverting stoma non-reversal.

How best to palliate and treat emergency conditions in geriatric patients with colorectal cancer

Almost one third of colorectal cancer (CRC) cases are diagnosed in an emergency setting, mostly among geriatric patients. Clinical scenarios are often complex and decision making delicate. Besides the obvious need to consider the patient's and/or family and care givers' desires, the surgeon should be able to make the best educated guess on future outcomes in three areas: oncological prognosis, morbidity and mortality risk, and long-term functional loss. Using simple and brief tools for frailty screening reasonable treatment goals with curative or palliative intent can be planned. The most frequent clinical scenarios of CRC in emergency are bowel obstruction and perforation. We propose treatment algorithms based on assessment of the patient's overall reserve and discuss the indications, techniques and impact of a stoma in the geriatric patient. Bridge to surgery strategies may be best adapted to help the frail geriatric patient overcome the acute disease and maybe return to previous state of function. Post-operative morbidity and mortality rates are high in emergency surgery for CRC, but if the geriatric patient survives the post-operative period, oncological prognosis seems to be similar to younger patients. Because the occurrence of complications is the strongest predictor of functional decline and death, post-operative care plays a major role to optimize outcomes. Future studies should further investigate emergency surgery of CRC in the older adults focusing in particular on functional outcomes in order to help physicians counsel patients and families for a tailored treatment.

Prophylactic mesh placement to avoid incisional hernias after stoma reversal: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

To provide an overview of the available literature on prevention of incisional hernias after stoma reversal, with the use of prophylactic meshes.

Methods

A literature search of Pubmed, MEDLINE and EMBASE was performed. Search terms for stoma, enterostomy, mesh, prophylaxis and hernia were used. Search was updated to December 31th 2018. No time limitations were used, while English, Geman, Dutch and French were used as language restrictions. The primary outcome was the incidence of incisional hernia formation after stoma reversal. Secondary outcomes were mesh-related complications. Data on study design, sample size, patient characteristics, stoma and mesh characteristics, duration of follow-up and outcomes were extracted from the included articles.

Results

A number of 241 articles were identified and three studies with 536 patients were included. A prophylactic mesh was placed in 168 patients to prevent incisional hernias after stoma reversal. Follow-up ranged from 10 to 21 months. The risk of incisional hernia in case of prophylactic mesh placement was significantly lower in comparison to no mesh placement (OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.04–0.27, p < 0.001, I² = 0%, CI 0–91.40%). No differences in surgical site infections were detected between the groups.

Conclusions

The use of a prophylactic mesh seems to reduce the risk on incisional hernias after stoma reversal and therefore mesh reinforcement should be considered after stoma reversal.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s10029-019-01996-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Diverting Ostomy: For Whom, When, What, Where, and Why

Fecal diversion is an important tool in the surgical armamentarium. There is much controversy regarding which clinical scenarios warrant diversion. Throughout this article, we have analyzed the most recent literature and discussed the most common applications for the use of a diverting stoma. These include construction of diverting ileostomy or colostomy, ostomy for low colorectal/coloanal anastomosis, inflammatory bowel disease, diverticular disease, and obstructing colorectal cancer. We conclude the following: diverting loop ileostomy is preferred to loop colostomy, an ostomy should be used for a pelvic anastomosis < 5 to 6 cm including coloanal anastomosis and ileo-anal-pouch anastomosis, severe perianal Crohn's disease frequently requires diversion, a primary anastomosis with diverting ileostomy in the setting of diverticular perforation is safe, and a diverting stoma can be used as a bridge to primary resection in the setting of an obstructing malignancy.

Comparative outcomes between palliative ileostomy and colostomy in patients with malignant large bowel obstruction

Objectives: Palliative stoma creation should be considered in patients at high risk of colonic metallic stent failure. However, it is unclear whether ileostomy or colostomy is superior. This study compared short-term outcomes between palliative ileostomy and colostomy. Methods: We identified 82 patients with malignant large bowel obstruction, caused by various advanced cancers, between January 2005 and December 2016. We compared short-term outcomes between the ileostomy group (n = 33) and the colostomy group (n = 49). Results: For all 82 patients, clinical success was achieved. Three patients with ileostomy died within 30 days of ostomy formation. The ileostomy group had statistically significant differences in median operative time (113 vs. 129 minutes, p = 0.045) and blood loss (8 vs. 40 g, p = 0.037) in comparison with the colostomy group. No statistically significant differences were observed in the surgical complications (30.3 vs. 38.8%, p = 0.431), in the median period to oral intake (3 vs. 4 days, p = 0.335) and in the hospital stay after surgery (32 vs. 27 days, p = 0.509) between the two groups. Overall stoma-related complications occurred in 27 (32.9%) patients. Stoma-related complications occurred more frequently in the ileostomy group (16/33 vs. 11/49 patients, p = 0.014). High output stoma (6 patients) and irritation (5 patients) occurred more frequently in the ileostomy group. Conclusions: Palliative colostomy is superior to ileostomy due to fewer stoma-related complications. When ileostomy is required, aggressive interventions for high output stomas should be implemented.

The influence of diverting loop ileostomy vs. colostomy on postoperative morbidity in restorative anterior resection for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the morbidity of loop ileostomy (LI) and loop colostomy (LC) creation in restorative anterior resection for rectal cancer as well as the morbidity of their reversal.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE via Ovid, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched for records published from 1980 to 2017 by three independent researchers. The primary endpoint was overall morbidity after stoma creation and reversal. Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio (OR) was used to compare categorical variables. Clinical significance was evaluated using numbers needed to treat (NNT).

RESULTS

Six studies (two randomized controlled trials and four observational studies) totaling 1063 patients (666 LI and 397 LC) were included in the meta-analysis. Overall morbidity rate after both stoma creation and closure was 15.6% in LI vs. 20.4% in LC [OR(95%CI) = 0.67 (0.29, 1.58); p = 0.36] [NNT(95%CI) = 21 (> 10.4 to benefit, > 2430.2 to harm)]. Morbidity rate after stoma creation was both statistically and clinically significantly lower after LI [18.2% vs. 30.6%; OR(95%CI) = 0.42 (0.25, 0.70); p = 0.001; NNT(95%CI) = 9 (4.7, 29.3)]. Dehydration rate was 3.1% (8/259) in LI vs. 0% (0/168) in LC. The difference was not statistically or clinically significant [OR(95%CI) = 3.00 (0.74, 12.22); p = 0.13; NNT (95%CI) = 33 (19.2, 101.9)]. Ileus rates after stoma closure were significantly higher in LI as compared to LC [5.2% vs. 1.7%; OR(95%CI) = 2.65 (1.13, 6.18); p = 0.02].

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis found no difference between LI and LC in overall morbidity after stoma creation and closure. Morbidity rates following the creation of LI were significantly decreased at the cost of a risk for dehydration.

Preloop trial: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

A temporary loop ileostomy, which is used to decrease the risk of symptomatic anastamotic leakage after anterior resection and total mesorectal excision (TME), is traditionally closed without any mesh. However, as 44% of incisional site hernias need further repair after stoma closure, attention has increasingly been paid to the use of mesh. Research on the prevention of these hernias is scarce, and no studies comparing different meshes exist.

METHOD/DESIGN

The Preloop trial (Clinical Trials NCT03445936) is a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter trial to compare synthetic mesh (Parietene Macro™, Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA) and biological implants (Permacol™, Medtronic) at a retromuscular sublay position for the prevention of incisional site hernias after loop-ileostomy closure. The main endpoints in this trial are infections at 30-day follow-up and the incidence of hernias clinically or on CT scan at 10 months after closure of the stoma. The secondary endpoints are other complications within 30 days of surgery graded with the Clavien-Dindo classification, reoperation rate, operating time, length of stay, quality of life measured with RAND-36, and incidence of hernia over a 5-year follow-up period. A total of 100 patients will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio.

DISCUSSION

This is a pilot trial that will be undertaken to provide some novel evidence on the safety profile and efficiency of both synthetic mesh and biological implants for the prevention of incisional hernias after closure by temporary loop ileostomy. The hypothesis is that synthetic mesh is economical but equally safe and at least as effective as biological implants in hernia prevention and in contaminated surgical sites.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03445936 . Registered on 7 February 2018.

Splenic flexure mobilization in rectal cancer surgery: do we always need it?

Splenic flexure (SFM) in rectal cancer surgery is a crucial step which may increase the difficulty of the operation. The aim of this retrospective single-center study is to demonstrate if the selective omission of SFM during anterior rectal resection can reduce the complexity of the operation, without affecting post-operative and oncologic outcomes. Data of 112 consecutive rectal resections for cancer from March 2010 to March 2017 were analyzed and divided into two groups: SFM and No-SFM. A sub-analysis was then performed for laparoscopy and traditional cases. Post-operative and oncologic outcomes, including overall (OS) and cancer-related survival (CRS), were analyzed and compared. SFM was performed in 42% of cases and laparoscopy was used in 73.2%. Operative time resulted significantly lower in the No-SFM group (190 vs. 225 min, p = 0.01). In laparoscopy in the No-SFM group, operative time and post-operative stay were significantly lower (205.5 vs. 222.5 min, p = 0.04; 9 vs. 10 days, p = 0.01). Most of the open resections were performed without SFM (35.4% vs. 14.9%, p = 0.02). No statistical significant differences were found in OS and CRS in the two groups. We support the hypothesis that every surgeon should carry out an accurate intra-operative evaluation to perform a selective SFM. When possible, SFM can be safely avoided with no additional risks in terms of post-operative and oncologic outcomes.

COLOSTOMY CLOSURE: RISK FACTORS FOR COMPLICATIONS

Background

: The restoration of intestinal continuity is an elective procedure that is not free of complications; on the contrary, many studies have proven a high level of morbidity and mortality. It is multifactorial, and has factors inherent to the patients and to the surgical technique.

Aim

: To identify epidemiological features of patients that underwent ostomy closure analyzing the information about the surgical procedure and its arising complications.

Method

: It was realized a retrospective analysis of medical records of patients who underwent ostomy closure over a period of seven years (2009-2015).

Results

: A total of 39 patients were included, 53.8% male and 46.2% female, with mean age of 52.4 years. Hartmann´s procedure and ileostomy were the mainly reasons for restoration of intestinal continuity, representing together 87%. Termino-terminal anastomosis was performed in 71.8% of cases, by using mainly the manual technique. 25.6% developed complications, highlighting anastomotic leakage; there were three deaths (7.6%). The surgical time, the necessity of ICU and blood transfusion significantly related to post-operative complications.

Conclusion

: It was found that the majority of the patients were male, with an average age of 52 years. It was observed that the surgical time, the necessity of blood transfusion and ICU were factors significantly associated with complications.

2017 WSES guidelines on colon and rectal cancer emergencies: obstruction and perforation

ᅟ

Obstruction and perforation due to colorectal cancer represent challenging matters in terms of diagnosis, life-saving strategies, obstruction resolution and oncologic challenge. The aims of the current paper are to update the previous WSES guidelines for the management of large bowel perforation and obstructive left colon carcinoma (OLCC) and to develop new guidelines on obstructive right colon carcinoma (ORCC).

Methods

The literature was extensively queried for focused publication until December 2017. Precise analysis and grading of the literature has been performed by a working group formed by a pool of experts: the statements and literature review were presented, discussed and voted at the Consensus Conference of the 4th Congress of the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) held in Campinas in May 2017.

Results

CT scan is the best imaging technique to evaluate large bowel obstruction and perforation. For OLCC, self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS), when available, offers interesting advantages as compared to emergency surgery; however, the positioning of SEMS for surgically treatable causes carries some long-term oncologic disadvantages, which are still under analysis. In the context of emergency surgery, resection and primary anastomosis (RPA) is preferable to Hartmann’s procedure, whenever the characteristics of the patient and the surgeon are permissive. Right-sided loop colostomy is preferable in rectal cancer, when preoperative therapies are predicted.

With regards to the treatment of ORCC, right colectomy represents the procedure of choice; alternatives, such as internal bypass and loop ileostomy, are of limited value.

Clinical scenarios in the case of perforation might be dramatic, especially in case of free faecal peritonitis. The importance of an appropriate balance between life-saving surgical procedures and respect of oncologic caveats must be stressed. In selected cases, a damage control approach may be required.

Medical treatments including appropriate fluid resuscitation, early antibiotic treatment and management of co-existing medical conditions according to international guidelines must be delivered to all patients at presentation.

Conclusions

The current guidelines offer an extensive overview of available evidence and a qualitative consensus regarding management of large bowel obstruction and perforation due to colorectal cancer.

Temporary closure of colostomy with suture before colostomy takedown improves the postoperative outcomes

PURPOSE

Temporary loop colostomy is a common surgical procedure used to avoid complications in high-risk distal anastomosis as well as pelvic inflammation. Issues regarding postoperative outcomes of colostomy takedown have been widely discussed in the literature, wound infection especially. Temporary closure of colostomy with suture before takedown was adopted in our study, which provided excellent traction to aid mobilization of stomy and avoided stool spillage to downgrade the wound classification to "clean contamination." We aimed to determine the effects of the procedure on postoperative outcomes.

METHODS

This was a prospective case-control study at a single tertiary medical center. Patients presenting for elective colostomy takedown were included. Allis clamp (n = 50) or silk suture (n = 60) was applied to mobilize the colostomy, and results were compared. Operative time and wound infection rate were measured as primary postoperative outcomes. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to demonstrate the association between the two groups and outcomes.

RESULTS

In univariate analyses, significantly shorter operative time (median = 57 min, p = 0.003) and lower postoperative wound infection rate (3%, p = 0.03) were noted in the group receiving silk suture. Multivariate analyses results showed that silk suture was significantly associated with both operative time (B = - 8.5, p = 0.01) and wound infection (odds ratio = 0.18, p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

With the advantage of enhancing traction and decreasing contamination, the temporary closure of colostomy with suture improved takedown outcomes, including a shorter operative time and lower wound infection rate.

THE VULKAN TECHNIQUE: A NOVEL OSTOMY-CLOSURE TECHNIQUE THAT REDUCES COMPLICATIONS AND OPERATIVE TIMES

BACKGROUND

Ostomy reversals remain at high risk for surgical complications. Indeed, surgical-side infections due to bacterial contamination of the stoma lead to revision surgery and prolonged hospital stay.

AIM

To describe the novel vulkan technique of ostomy reversal that aims to reduce operative times, surgical complications, and readmission rates.

METHODS

Ostomy closure was performed using the vulkan technique in all patients. This technique consists of external intestinal closure, circular skin incision and adhesiolysis, re-anastomosis, and closure of the subcutaneous tissue in three layers, while leaving a small secondary wound through which exudative fluid can be drained. The medical records of enterostomy patients were retrospectively reviewed from our hospital database.

RESULTS

The vulkan technique was successfully performed in 35 patients mainly by resident surgeons with <5 years of experience (n=22; 62.8%). The ileostomy and colostomy closure times were 53 min (interquartile range [IQR], 41-68 min; n=22) and 136 min (IQR: 88-188 min; n=13; p<0.001), respectively. The median hospital stay was seven days (IQR: 5-14.5 days); the length of hospital stay did not differ between ileostomy and colostomy groups. Major surgical complications occurred only in patients who underwent colostomy closure following the Hartmann procedure (n=2); grade≥IIIb according Clavien-Dindo classification.

CONCLUSION

The vulkan technique was successfully applied in all patients with very low rates of surgical-site infections. Off note, residents with limited surgical experience mainly performed the procedure while operating time was less than one hour.