Clinical Outcomes of Ileostomy Closure According to Timing During Adjuvant Chemotherapy After Rectal Cancer Surgery

Clinical Outcomes of Ileostomy Closure during versus after Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Patients with Rectal Cancer

Background

Protective ileostomy can effectively prevent severe anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer surgery; however, the optimal timing for ileostomy closure during adjuvant chemotherapy remains unclear. This study aimed to explore the safety and long-term outcomes of early ileostomy closure during adjuvant chemotherapy.

Method

Patients who underwent laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery combined with protective ileostomy and adjuvant chemotherapy between April 2017 and April 2021 were retrospectively evaluated. Patients were divided into an early closure group during chemotherapy (group A) and a late closure group after chemotherapy (group B).

Results

A total of 215 patients were included in this study, with 115 in group A and 100 in group B. There were no significant differences in demographic and clinical characteristics between the two groups. In group A, durations of stoma status (p < 0.001) and low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) (p < 0.001) were shorter, and rectal stenosis (p=0.036) and stoma-related complications (p=0.007), especially stoma stenosis (p=0.041), were less common. However, compliance with chemotherapy was worse (p=0.009). There were no significant differences in operative time, postoperative hospital stay, postoperative complications, incidence and severity of LARS, disease-free survival, or overall survival between groups.

Conclusion

Early ileostomy closure can effectively reduce the duration of stoma status, duration of LARS, rectal stenosis, and stoma-related complications while not affecting surgical complications and oncological outcomes. Ileostomy closure should not be delayed because of adjuvant chemotherapy. However, follow-up should be strengthened to increase compliance and integrity with chemotherapy.

Impact of chemotherapy on surgical outcomes in ileostomy reversal: a propensity score matching study from a single centre

PURPOSE

In patients with chemotherapy, there is no consensus on the timing of ileostomy closure. Ileostomy reversal could improve the quality of life and minimise the long-term adverse events of delayed closure. In this study, we evaluated the impact of chemotherapy on ileostomy closure and searched for the predictive factors for complications.

METHODS

We retrospectively analysed 212 patients with rectal cancer who underwent ileostomy closure surgery during and without chemotherapy and were consecutively enrolled between 2010 and 2016. As a result of the heterogeneity of the two groups, propensity score matching (PSM) was performed with a 1:1 PSM cohort.

RESULTS

A total of 162 patients were included in the analysis. The overall stoma closure-related complications (12.4% vs. 11.1%, p = 1.00) and major complications (2.5% vs. 6.2%, p = 0.44) were not significantly different between the two groups. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that chronic kidney disease and bevacizumab use are risk factors for major complications.

CONCLUSION

Patients with oral or intravenous chemotherapy can safely have ileostomy closure with an adequate time delay from chemotherapy. When patients use bevacizumab, major complications related to ileostomy closure should still be cautioned.

Comparison of clinical outcomes of stoma reversal during versus after chemotherapy for rectal cancer patients

PURPOSE

The optimal timing of stoma closure during or after adjuvant chemotherapy for rectal cancer patients undergoing sphincter-preserving surgery remains unknown. This study aimed to investigate the influence of clinical and oncological outcomes depending on the timing of stoma closure.

METHODS

Between January 2006 and December 2015, we enrolled 244 consecutive rectal cancer patients who underwent curative-intent sphincter-preserving surgery with diverting transverse colostomy and adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients with stoma closure during (During group) adjuvant chemotherapy were compared to those who had stoma closure after adjuvant chemotherapy (After group).

RESULTS

Parastomal hernia occurred more frequently in the after group than in the during group. (10% vs. 2.9%, p = 0.028). Overall, no significant difference was observed in overall survival (OS) or disease-free survival (DFS) between the two groups (p = 0.911 for OS, p = 0.505 for DFS). However, an inferior OS occurred if reopen surgery was performed within 30 days of stoma closure in the during group, as compared with the after group (p = 0.004). In addition, a marginally poor DFS was observed in the group of patients who received further operations due to 30-day stoma closure complications compared to the other patients (p = 0.07).

CONCLUSIONS

For rectal cancer patients who underwent sphincter-preserving surgery, attention should be given to avoid 30-day major complications after stoma reversal because patients who require reoperation during adjuvant chemotherapy may have poor long-term survival.

Prophylactic effect of retromuscular mesh placement during loop ileostomy closure on incisional hernia incidence-a multicentre randomised patient- and observer-blind trial (P.E.L.I.O.N trial)

BACKGROUND

Incisional hernia is a frequent complication following loop ileostomy reversal. Incisional hernias are associated with morbidity, loss of health-related quality of life and costs and warrant the investigation of prophylactic measures. Prophylactic mesh implantation at the time of surgical stoma reversal has shown to be a promising and safe method to prevent incisional hernias in this setting. However, the efficacy of this method has not yet been investigated in a large multicentre randomised-controlled trial (RCT) with adequate external validity. The P.E.L.I.O.N. trial will evaluate the efficacy of prophylactic mesh reinforcement after loop ileostomy closure in decreasing the rate of incisional hernia versus standard closure alone.

METHODS

P.E.L.I.O.N. is a multicentre, patient- and observer-blind RCT. Patients undergoing loop ileostomy closure will undergo intraoperative 1:1 randomisation into either abdominal wall closure with a continuous slowly absorbable suture in small-stitch technique without mesh reinforcement (control group) or abdominal wall closure with an additional reinforcement with a retromuscular non-absorbable, macro-pore (pore size ≥ 1000 μm or effective porosity >0%) light-weight monofilament or mixed structure mesh. A total of 304 patients (152 per group) will need to be randomised in the study. Based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, 1,014 patients are expected to be screened for eligibility in order to recruit the necessary number of patients. The primary endpoint will be the frequency of incision hernias within 24 months according to the European Hernia Society definition. Secondary endpoints will be the frequency of surgical site occurrences (including surgical site infections, wound seromas and hematomas, and enterocutaneous fistulas), postoperative pain, the number of revision surgeries and health-related quality of life. Safety will be assessed by measuring postoperative complications ≥ grade 3 according to the Dindo-Clavien classification.

DISCUSSION

Depending on the results of the P.E.L.I.O.N. trial, prophylactic mesh implantation could become the new standard for loop ileostomy reversal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

DRKS00027921, U1111-1273-4657.

Delayed ileostomy closure increases the odds of Clostridium difficile infection

AIM

A diverting ileostomy is typically performed to divert intestinal contents in high-risk colorectal anastomoses. Ileostomy closure is associated with high rates of postoperative Clostridium difficile infection (CDI). Risk factors for the development of CDI are unclear; however, a correlation has been observed with delayed closure. This study aimed to assess the odds of developing CDI in patients who had a delay to reversal of ileostomy, compared to those who had no delay.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted of patients undergoing reversal of ileostomy between 2010 and 2019 at a single tertiary centre. A delay to reversal of ileostomy was defined if the procedure was performed at >365 days following the index procedure. CDI was defined as the presence of Clostridium difficile toxin associated with diarrhoea. Univariable logistic regression analysis was performed to estimate odds of CDI for each covariable, comparing patients who had a delay to reversal of ileostomy with those who did not. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to adjust for the potential confounding effects of covariables.

RESULTS

Of 195 patients, 11 (5.6%), developed postoperative CDI. Multivariable analysis showed that delay to reversal of ileostomy was associated with a nearly 7-fold increase in odds of CDI (OR = 6.95, CI: 1.06-81.6; p-value = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

A delay to reversal of ileostomy of >365 days was associated with a higher incidence of CDI postoperatively. Careful consideration should be given to the timing of reversal and appropriate preoperative counselling of patients.

Clinical Outcomes of Ileostomy Closure before Adjuvant Chemotherapy after Rectal Cancer Surgery: An Observational Study from a Chinese Center

Background

The optimal timing of temporary ileostomy closure with respect to the time of adjuvant chemotherapy following sphincter-saving surgery for rectal cancer remains unclear. The aim of this study is to investigate the clinical and oncological outcomes of ileostomy closure before, during, and after adjuvant chemotherapy following curative rectal cancer resection.

Methods

Patients diagnosed with rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent low anterior resection and temporary loop ileostomy during May 2015 and September 2019 were retrospectively evaluated. Patients undergoing ileostomy closure before adjuvant chemotherapy (Group I) were compared to patients undergoing closure during (Group II) and after (Group III) adjuvant chemotherapy.

Results

A total of 225 patients were evaluated for eligibility, and 132 were finally selected and divided into 3 groups (24 in Group I, 53 in Group II, and 55 in Group III). No significant differences were observed in operative time, postoperative hospital stay, postoperative complications, total adjuvant chemotherapy cycles, and low anterior resection syndrome scores among the three groups. There was no significant difference in disease-free survival (p = 0.834) and overall survival (p = 0.462) between the three groups.

Conclusion

Temporary ileostomy closure before adjuvant chemotherapy following curative rectal cancer resection can achieve a clinical and oncological safety level equal to stoma closure during or after chemotherapy in selected patients.

Impact of a defunctioning ileostomy and time to stoma closure on bowel function after low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Impaired bowel function after low anterior resection (LAR) for rectal cancer is a frequent problem with a major impact on quality of life. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of a defunctioning ileostomy, and time to ileostomy closure on bowel function after LAR for rectal cancer.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review based on the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. Comprehensive literature searches were conducted using PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases for articles published from 1989 up to August 2019. Analysis was performed using Review Manager (version 5.3) using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

The search yielded 11 studies (1400 patients) that reported on functional outcome after LAR with at least 1 year follow-up, except for one study. Five scales were used: the Low Anterior Resection Syndrome (LARS) score, the Wexner score, the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre Bowel Function Instrument, the Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life scale, and the Hallbook questionnaire. Based on seven studies, major LARS occurred more often in the ileostomy group (OR 2.84, 95% CI, 1.70-4.75, p < 0.0001: I2 = 60%, X2 = 0.02). Based on six studies, a longer time to stoma closure increased the risk of major LARS with a mean difference in time to closure of 2.39 months (95% CI, 1.28-3.51, p < 0.0001: I2 = 21%, X2 = 0.28) in the major vs. no LARS group. Other scoring systems could not be pooled, but presence of an ileostomy predicted poorer bowel function except with the Hallbook questionnaire.

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of developing major LARS seems higher with a defunctioning ileostomy. A prolonged time to ileostomy closure seems to reinforce the negative effect on bowel function; therefore, early reversal should be an important part of the patient pathway.

Does the timing of protective ileostomy closure post-low anterior resection have an impact on the outcome? A retrospective study

BACKGROUND

The optimal timing for ileostomy closure remains controversial, most of the surgeons are closing ileostomy after two to three months, although ileostomy closure considered a simple procedure, it can cause significant morbidity; this study aims to clarify any relation between the post-closure complications rate and the time from its creation to the repair.

METHOD

From January 2010 to December 2017, data retrieved for a 405 patients who had protective ileostomy closure after rectal cancer surgery, our sample has been enrolled into two arms, the first arm includes whose ileostomies closed at or before three months, and the second arm involved whose ileostomies closed after three months from the index surgery, statistical analysis was performed and compared in both arms, RESULT: The overall post-closure complications in our hospital was 23.7%, there was no significant difference between the overall complications rate for both early and late closure groups (26.8% and 22.7%) respectively (P = 0.499), The majority of the complications were intestinal obstruction, and superficial surgical site infection, there was no significant association between the interval to ileostomy reversal and the intestinal obstruction although it was higher in the late closure group, in the other hand the surgical site infection complication found to be significantly higher in the early closure group than the late closure group (15.4% Vs 5.1%) with (P = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

The duration between the creation of protective ileostomy and its reversal was not a significant independent predictor of post-closure complications rate.

Early versus late closure of temporary ileostomy after rectal cancer surgery: a meta-analysis

The complications caused by early closure (EC) or late closure (LC) after temporary ileostomy in rectal cancer patients have not been compared systematically. We conducted this meta-analysis to explore the details surrounding this issue, based on a search of PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Web of Science, Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Embase, and Google Scholar. The comparative indices included total complications, severe complications, and various individual complications before or after closure. Four randomized-controlled trials (RCTs), including the EASY trial, were analyzed, involving a collective total of 324 patients. EC tended to result in more postoperative complications than LC for rectal cancer patients with temporary ileostomy. This difference was mainly embodied in wound complications. Nevertheless, LC resulted in more complications than EC before closure, such as leakage outside the appliance bag and skin irritation. There was no obvious difference in severe postoperative complications or medical complications. With fewer overall and wound-related complications, LC tended to be more suitable than EC for rectal cancer patients with a temporary ileostomy; however, the complications before closure should also be considered.

Assessment of the risk of permanent stoma after low anterior resection in rectal cancer patients

Background

One of the most severe complications of low anterior rectal resection is anastomotic leakage (AL). The creation of a loop ileostomy (LI) reduces the prevalence of AL requiring surgical intervention. However, up to one-third of temporary stomas may never be closed.

The first aim of the study was to perform a retrospective assessment of the impact of LI on the risk of permanent stoma (PS) and symptomatic AL. The second aim of the study was to assess preoperative PS risk factors in patients with LI.

Methods

A total of 286 consecutive patients who underwent low anterior rectal resection were subjected to retrospective analysis. In 101 (35.3%) patients, diverting LI was performed due to low anastomosis, while in the remaining 185 (64.7%) patients, no ileostomy was performed. LIs were reversed after adjuvant treatment. Analyses of the effect of LI on symptomatic AL and PS were performed. Among the potential risk factors for PS, clinical factors and the values of selected peripheral blood parameters were analysed.

Results

PS occurred in 37.6% and 21.1% of the patients with LI and without LI, respectively (p < 0.01). Symptomatic ALs were significantly more common in patients without LI. In this group, symptomatic ALs occurred in 23.8% of patients, while in the LI group, they occurred in 5% of patients (p < 0.001). In the LI group, the only significant risk factor for PS in the multivariate analysis was preoperative plasma fibrinogen concentration (OR = 1.007, 97.5% CI 1.002–1.013, p = 0.013).

Conclusions

Although protective LI may reduce the incidence of symptomatic AL, it can be related to a higher risk of PS in this group of patients. The preoperative plasma fibrinogen concentration can be a risk factor for PS in LI patients and may be a useful variable in decision-making models.