Patient Perceptions and Quality of Life After Colon and Rectal Surgery: What Do Patients Really Want?

Restorative Surgery Is More Common in Ulcerative Colitis Patients With a High Income: A Population-Based Study

BACKGROUND

To avoid a permanent stoma, restorative surgery is performed after the colectomy. Previous studies have shown that less than half of patients with ulcerative colitis undergo restorative surgery.

OBJECTIVE

The primary aim was to explore the association between socioeconomic status and restorative surgery after colectomy.

DESIGN

This was a nationwide register-based cohort study.

SETTINGS

The study was conducted in Sweden.

PATIENTS

All Swedish patients with ulcerative colitis who underwent colectomy between 1990 and 2017 at the age of 15 to 69 years were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main outcome was restorative surgery, and the secondary outcome was failure of the reconstruction (defined as the need for a new ileostomy after the reconstruction or nonreversal of a defunctioning stoma within 2 years of the reconstruction). To calculate HRs for restorative surgery after colectomy, as well as failure after restorative surgery, multivariable Cox regression models were performed (adjusted for sex, year of colectomy, colorectal cancer diagnosis, education, civil status, country of birth, income (quartiles 1 to 4, where Q4 represents highest income), hospital volume, and stratified by age).

RESULTS

In all, 5969 patients with ulcerative colitis underwent colectomy, and of those, 2794 (46.8%) underwent restorative surgery. Restorative surgery was more common in patients with a high income at the time of colectomy (quartile 1, reference; quartile 2, 1.09 (0.98-1.21); quartile 3, 1.20 (1.07-1.34); quartile 4, 1.27 (1.13-1.43)) and less common in those born in a Nordic country than in immigrants born in a non-Nordic country (0.86 (0.74-0.99)), whereas no association was seen with educational level and civil status. There was no association between socioeconomic status and the risk of failure after restorative surgery.

LIMITATIONS

The study was restricted to register data.

CONCLUSIONS

Restorative surgery in ulcerative colitis appears to be more common in patients with a high income and patients born in a non-Nordic country, indicating inequality in the provided care. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B433.

LA CIRUGA RESTAURADORA ES MS COMN EN PACIENTES CON COLITIS ULCEROSA CON INGRESOS ALTOS UN ESTUDIO POBLACIONAL

ANTECEDENTES:Para evitar un estoma permanente, se realiza una cirugía reparadora después de la colectomía. Estudios anteriores han demostrado que menos de la mitad de los pacientes con colitis ulcerosa se someten a cirugía reconstituyente.OBJETIVO:El objetivo principal fue explorar la asociación entre el nivel socioeconómico y la cirugía reconstituyente después de la colectomía.DISEÑO:Estudio de cohorte basado en registros a nivel nacional.MARCO:Suecia.PACIENTES:Todos los pacientes Suecos con colitis ulcerosa que se sometieron a colectomía desde el 1990 a 2017 a la edad de 15 a 69 años.MEDIDAS DE RESULTADOS PRINCIPALES:El resultado principal fue la cirugía restaurativa y el resultado secundario fue el fracaso de la reconstrucción (definida como la necesidad de una nueva ileostomía después de la reconstrucción o la no-reversión de un estoma disfuncional dentro de los dos años posteriores a la reconstrucción). Para calcular los cocientes de riesgo para la cirugía restauradora después de la colectomía, así como el fracaso después de la cirugía restauradora, se realizaron modelos de regresión de Cox multivariables (ajustados por sexo, año de colectomía, diagnóstico de cáncer colorrectal, educación, estado civil, país de nacimiento e ingresos (cuartiles 1- 4; donde Q4 representa los mayores ingresos), volumen de hospitales y estratificado por edad).RESULTADOS:En total 5969 pacientes con colitis ulcerosa se sometieron a colectomía, y de ellos 2794 (46,8%) se sometieron a cirugía restauradora. La cirugía restauradora fue más común en pacientes con altos ingresos en el momento de la colectomía (referencia del cuartil 1, cuartil 2: 1,09 (0,98-1,21), cuartil 3: 1,20 (1,07-1,34), cuartil 4: 1,27 (1,13-1,43)), y menos común en los nacidos en un país nórdico que en los inmigrantes nacidos en un país no-nórdico (0,86 (0,74-0,99)), mientras que no se observó asociación con el nivel educativo y el estado civil. No hubo asociación entre el nivel socioeconómico y el riesgo de fracaso después de la cirugía reparadora.LIMITACIONES:Restricción para registrar datos.CONCLUSIONES:La cirugía reparadora en colitis ulcerosa parece ser más común en pacientes con ingresos altos y en pacientes nacidos en un país no-nórdico, lo que indica desigualdad en la atención brindada. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B433.

Highly selective diversion with proactive leakage management after low anterior resection for rectal cancer

In this single center case series with nine percent primary diversion, 86 of 94 patients alive and with complete follow-up at one year had a functioning anastomosis. Seventy-five of the initial 99 patients never had a stoma. Meaning: Highly selective fecal diversion in combination with proactive leakage management, low anastomoses can be preserved safely, and the majority of patients will be spared all disadvantages of a diverting stoma.

Intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: the risk is functional rather than oncological. A 25-year experience from Bordeaux

AIM

There are few data evaluating the long-term outcomes of intersphincteric resection (ISR), especially the impact of inclusion of more juxtapositioned and intra-anal tumours on oncological and functional outcomes. We compared the oncological and functional results of patients treated by total mesorectal excision and ISR for low rectal cancer over a 25-year period.

METHOD

This is a retrospective study from a single institution evaluating results of ISR over three periods: 1990-1998, 1999-2006 and 2007-2014. Patients treated by partial or total ISR, with or without neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, for low rectal cancer (≤ 6 cm from the anal verge) were included. We compared postoperative morbidity, quality of surgery and oncological and functional outcomes in the time periods studied.

RESULTS

Of 813 patients operated on for low rectal cancer, 303 had ISR. Tumour stage did not differ; however, the distance of the tumour from the anorectal junction decreased from 1 to 0 cm (P < 0.001) and the distal resection margin shortened from 25 to 10 mm (P < 0.001) from 1990 to 2014. The postoperative morbidity and quality of surgery did not change significantly over time. The 5-year local recurrence (4.3% vs 5.9% vs 3.5%; P = 0.741) and disease-free survival (72% vs 71% vs 75%; P = 0.918) did not differ between the three time periods. Functional results improved during the last period; however, overall 42% of patients experienced major bowel dysfunction.

CONCLUSION

Pushing the envelope of sphincter-saving resection in ultra-low rectal cancer reaching or invading the anal sphincter did not compromise oncological and functional outcomes. The main limitation of the ISR procedure appears to be functional rather than oncological, suggesting that bowel rehabilitation programmes should be developed.

Salvage Surgery With Organ Preservation for Patients With Local Regrowth After Watch and Wait: Is It Still Possible?

BACKGROUND

Patients with rectal cancer who achieve complete clinical response after neoadjuvant chemoradiation have been managed nonoperatively. Thirty percent of these patients may develop a local regrowth, and salvage resection with radical surgery is usually recommended. However, selected patients could be offered additional organ preservation by local excision. We hypothesized that patients with baseline T2 who underwent neoadjuvant therapy (for the specific purpose of achieving a complete clinical response) were more likely to harbor recurrent disease at an earlier stage and amenable to organ preservation strategies (local excision) when compared with T3/T4 (undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiation for oncologic reasons).

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare patients with local regrowth requiring salvage resection according to their baseline stage.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective review of consecutive patients with nonmetastatic distal rectal cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiation.

SETTINGS

The study included 2 independent tertiary centers with institutional watch-and-wait organ preservation programs.

PATIENTS

Consecutive patients with distal rectal cancer (cT2-4N1-2M0) managed by watch and wait and local regrowth from 2 institutions were included.

MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES

Final pathologic features and surgical and oncologic outcomes were compared according to baseline staging.

RESULTS

A total of 73 of 257 patients experienced local regrowth. cT2 presented similar to ypT, ypN, R0, and abdominal perineal resection rates (p > 0.05) at the time of salvage when compared with cT3 to cT4. Patients with cT2 at baseline were more likely to undergo an organ preservation procedure for salvage (56.2% vs 26.5%; p = 0.03). Overall and disease-free survival after salvage were similar between groups irrespective of the type of surgery for the regrowth.

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective study, small sample size, and possible inaccurate baseline staging.

CONCLUSIONS

Although patients with baseline cT2 rectal cancer had similar pathologic stage at the time of recurrence, these patients were more likely to continue an organ preservation pathway after local regrowth through transanal local excision when compared with cT3 to cT4. Despite differences in the use of radical salvage resection, there were no differences in oncologic outcomes. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B254. CIRUGÍA DE RESCATE CON PRESERVACIÓN DE ORGANO PARA PACIENTES CON RECIDIVA LOCAL LUEGO DE WATCH & WAIT: ¿SIGUE SIENDO POSIBLE?: Los pacientes con cáncer rectal que logran una respuesta clínica completa luego de la quimiorradiación neoadyuvante han sido tratados de forma no quirúrgica. El treinta por ciento de estos pacientes pueden desarrollar un nuevo crecimiento local y generalmente se recomienda la resección de rescate con cirugía radical. Sin embargo, en pacientes seleccionados se podría ofrecer la posibilidad de preservación de órgano mediante escisión local. Se formuló la hipótesis de que los pacientes con estadio clinico inicial T2 y sometidos a terapia neoadyuvante (con el propósito específico de lograr una respuesta clínica completa) tenían más probabilidades de presentar una recurrencia local en una etapa más temprana y suceptibles de estrategias de preservación de órgano (escisión local) en comparación con T3 / T4 (sometidos a nCRT por razones oncológicas).Comparar los pacientes con recidiva local que requirieron cirugia de rescate de acuerdo con su estadio inicial.Revisión retrospectiva de pacientes consecutivos con cáncer de recto distal no metastásico sometidos a quimiorradiación neoadyuvante.Dos centros terciarios independientes con programas institucionales de preservación de órgano - Watch & Wait.Pacientes consecutivos con cáncer rectal distal (cT2-4N1-2M0) manejados por Watch & Wait y recidiva local.Las características patológicas finales, los resultados quirúrgicos y oncológicos se compararon de acuerdo con la estadificación inicial.Un total de 73 de 257 pacientes presentaron recidiva local. cT2 presentaron similares ypT, ypN, R0 y tasas de resección abdominoperineal (p>0,05) en el momento del rescate en comparación con cT3-4.Los pacientes con cT2 de base tuvieron más probabilidades de someterse a un procedimiento de preservación de órgano durante el rescate (56,2% frente a 26,5%; p = 0,03). Supervivencia general y DFS después del rescate fueron similares entre los grupos, independientemente del tipo de cirugía para la recidiva.Estudio retrospectivo, tamaño de muestra pequeño, la posible estadificación basal inexacta.Aunque los pacientes con cáncer rectal cT2 de base presentaron estadio patologico similar en el momento de la recidiva, estos pacientes tuvieron más probabilidades de continuar una vía de preservación de órgano luego de una recidiva local a través de la escisión local transanal en comparación con cT3-4. A pesar de las diferencias en el uso de la resección radical de rescate, no hubo diferencias en los resultados oncológicos. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B254.

Patient-Reported Bowel Function in Patients With Rectal Cancer Managed by a Watch-and-Wait Strategy After Neoadjuvant Therapy: A Case-Control Study

BACKGROUND

A watch-and-wait strategy is a nonoperative alternative to sphincter-preserving surgery for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who achieve a clinical complete response after neoadjuvant therapy. There are limited data about bowel function for patients undergoing this organ-preservation approach.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare bowel function in patients with rectal cancer managed with a watch-and-wait approach with bowel function in patients who underwent sphincter-preserving surgery (total mesorectal excision).

DESIGN

This was a retrospective case-control study using patient-reported outcomes.

SETTINGS

The study was conducted at a comprehensive cancer center.

PATIENTS

Twenty-one patients underwent a watch-and-wait approach and were matched 1:1 with 21 patients from a pool of 190 patients who underwent sphincter-preserving surgery, based on age, sex, and tumor distance from the anal verge.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Bowel function was measured using the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Bowel Function Instrument.

RESULTS

Patients in the watch-and-wait arm had better bowel function on the overall scale (median total score, 76 vs 55; p < 0.001) and on all of the subscales, with the greatest difference on the urgency/soilage subscale (median score, 20 vs 12; p < 0.001).

LIMITATIONS

The study was limited by its retrospective design, small sample size, and temporal variability between surgery and time of questionnaire completion.

CONCLUSIONS

A watch-and-wait strategy correlated with overall better bowel function when compared with sphincter-preserving surgery using a comprehensive validated bowel dysfunction tool. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B218. FUNCIÓN EVACUATORIA INFORMADA POR PACIENTES EN CÁNCER RECTAL MANEJADO CON UNA ESTRATEGIA DE OBSERVAR Y ESPERAR DESPUÉS DE LA TERAPIA NEOADYUVANTE: UN ESTUDIO DE CASOS Y CONTROLES: Observar y esperar es una alternativa no operativa a la cirugía de preservación del esfínter para pacientes con cáncer rectal localmente avanzado que logran una respuesta clínica completa después de la terapia neoadyuvante. Hay datos limitados sobre la función evacuatoria en pacientes sometidos a este abordaje para preservación de órganos.Evaluar la función evacuatoria en pacientes con cáncer rectal manejados con observar y esperar comparado a pacientes sometidos a cirugía de preservación de esfínteres (escisión mesorrectal total).Estudio retrospectivo de casos y controles utilizando resultados reportados por pacientes.Centro especializado oncológico.21 pacientes se sometieron a observar y esperar y se compararon con 21 pacientes de un grupo de 190 pacientes que se sometieron a cirugía de preservación de esfínteres controlando por edad, sexo y la distancia del tumor al borde anal.Función evacuatoria utilizando un instrumento de valoración del Centro de Cáncer Memorial Sloan Kettering.Los pacientes de observar y esperar demostraron mejor función evacuatoria en la escala general (puntuación total media, 76 versus 55; p <0,001) y en todas las subescalas, con la mayor diferencia en la subescala de urgencia / ensuciamiento fecal (puntuación media, 20 versus 12; p <0,001).Diseño retrospectivo, numero de muestra pequeño y variabilidad temporal entre la cirugía y el tiempo de finalización del cuestionario.Observar y esperar se correlacionó con mejor función evacuatoria en general en comparación con la cirugía de preservación del esfínter utilizando una herramienta integral validada para la disfunción evacuatoria. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B218. (Traducción-Dr. Adrián Ortega).

[Is postoperative acute pain control in colorectal surgery better within an enhanced recovery after surgery program (ERAS)?]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

A good acute pain control is necessary to achieve the main objective of Enhanced recovery After Surgery (ERAS) programs and accelerate recovery. The study objective is to evaluate postoperative (PO) acute pain, PO opioid consumption, and its association with functional recovery, after implementing a colorectal surgery ERAS program. An analysis was made as regards drugs adverse effects.

METHODS

Observational cohort study on scheduled colorectal Surgery: one prospective cohort subjected to the ERAS care program, and one retrospective cohort that received traditional non-standardised care. A record was made of mean pain intensity (measured by a visual analogue scale, which classifies pain intensity from 0 to 10, from lower to higher intensity), as well as the amount of opioid consumption on the day of surgery and on the first three postoperative days, and drugs adverse effects. An analysis was made of the association between PO opioid consumption and ERAS program, and between PO opioid consumption and functional recovery.

RESULTS

The study included a total of 410 patients (313 in the ERAS group and 97 in the control group). In the ERAS group, it was observed that the mean visual analogue scale was less than 2, with a smaller amount of PO opioid consumption, on each single day and the accumulated amount of the four days (4 [0-24] vs. 0 [0-4], P<.001). PO opioid consumption was associated with functional recovery (OR 0.97 [95% CI; 0.96-0.99], P=.011). No drugs adverse effects were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

After implementing a colorectal Surgery ERAS program, good pain control was achieved, as well as a reduction in PO opioid consumption, which is associated with functional recovery. No drugs adverse effects were observed.

Is my life going to change?-a review of quality of life after rectal resection

Rectal resection is a common practice for colorectal surgeons. The causes of this procedure are varied. The most frequent is cancer, but also inflammatory bowel disease, endometriosis, and rectovaginal or rectourethral fistulas. The loss of the normal rectal reservoir function, urinary problems, sexual dysfunction or pelvic pain are frequently reported in patients after rectal surgery and these disorders markedly affect the overall quality of life (QoL). In the last decades, rectal surgery has radically changed, with the development of surgical techniques, and it has progressed from abdominoperineal resection (APR) with a permanent colostomy to sphincter-saving procedures. Nowadays, the use of sphincter-preserving surgery has increased, but all these surgical techniques can have important sequels that modify the QoL of the patients. Historically, surgical outcomes, such as complications, survival and recurrences, have been widely studied by surgeons. In the present day, surgical outcomes have improved, rectal cancer recurrence rate has decreased and survival has increased. For these reasons, it has begun to gain importance in aspects of the QoL of patients, such as body image, fecal continence and sexuality or urinary function. Therefore, physicians should know the influence of different techniques and approaches on functional outcomes and QoL, to be able to inform patients of the treatment benefits and risk of postoperative dysfunctions. The aim of our study is to review the current literature to determine to what degree the QoL of patients who underwent a rectal resection decreases, which domains are the most affected and, in addition, to establish the influence of different surgical techniques and approaches on functional outcomes.

Association of laparoscopic colectomy versus open colectomy on the long-term health-related quality of life of colon cancer survivors

Background

Laparoscopic colectomy (LC) is a less invasive alternative to open colectomy (OC) in the treatment of stage I–III colon cancer. Research on the long-term (5-year post-diagnosis) health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of LC patients is scarce. Our study aimed to compare the long-term HRQOL and psychological well-being of stage I–III colon cancer survivors treated either with LC or OC.

Methods

This study used a German population-based cohort of patients treated with either LC (n = 86) or OC (n = 980). LC patients were matched to OC patients using a propensity score. At 5-year follow-up, patients completed assessments on HRQOL (EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-CR29) and psychological well-being (distress and disease/treatment burden). Least square mean scores of HRQOL were derived using linear regression. Proportions of patients with moderate/high distress and disease/treatment burden were compared with Chi-square tests.

Results

In total, 81 LC patients were matched to 156 OC patients. Generally, LC patients had HRQOL comparable to OC patients, albeit LC patients reported significantly better body image (87.1 versus 81.0, p = 0.03). Distress levels were generally low and comparable between the two groups, even though LC patients were more likely to experience disease recurrence (16% versus 7%, p = 0.02) than OC patients. OC patients were more likely to feel moderate/high levels of burden associated with the treatment (72% versus 56%, p = 0.01) and the time after treatment completion (43% versus 28%, p = 0.02).

Conclusion

LC patients reported comparable long-term HRQOL outcomes but higher levels of psychological well-being than OC patients 5 years after diagnosis, even though LC was associated with higher risk of disease recurrence.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Single-Incision Versus Multiport Laparoscopic Complete Mesocolic Excision Colectomy for Colon Cancer

Background. Our aim was to compare the emerging technique of single-incision laparoscopic surgery complete mesocolic excision (SILS CME) colectomy with the standard multiport laparoscopic CME (MPL CME) colectomy. Methods. MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, EMBASE, Ovid, and the Cochrane library were searched. Studies comparing the SILS CME with MPL CME in adults with colon adenocarcinoma were included. The Jadad and Newcastle Ottawa Scales were used to critically appraise the studies. The presence of statistical heterogeneity or publication bias was examined. Results. Seven studies (3 randomized) with a total number of 1344 patients were included (546 SILS CME and 798 MPL CME). No difference was found in anastomotic leakage (odds ratio [OR] = 0.79 [0.31 to 2.03]; P = .63), number of lymph nodes (weighted mean difference [WMD] = 0.85 [-0.97 to 2.66]; P = .36), hospital stay (WMD = 0.01 [-0.19 to 0.20]; P = .96), overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.19 [0.29 to 4.80]; P = .81), and disease-free survival (HR = 1.30 [0.30 to 5.61]; P = .72). Skin incision was shorter in SILS CME group (WMD = -3.02 [-3.25 to -2.80]; P < .00001) but with no difference in pain reported in postoperative day 1 (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.21 [-0.50 to 0.09]; P = .17) or day 2 (SMD = 0.16 [-0.52 to 0.84]; P = .64). Conclusions. SILS CME, although technically more demanding, has equivalent short- and long-term outcomes when compared with MPL CME. Potential benefits in cosmesis or postoperative pain need to be further explored by high-quality randomized controlled trials.

Colonic stents for malignant bowel obstruction: current status and future prospects

Introduction: Although more than two decades are already passed from the first description of this technique, the debate remains open on the role of self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) placement in the management of malignant bowel obstruction (MBO). According to most recent data, SEMS placement is considered a safe and effective alternative treatment as a bridge to surgery(BTS). In addition, stent placement should be considered as primary option for palliative treatment of obstructing cancer.Areas covered: Current status, indication, technique, oncological outcomes, advantages, and risks of SEMS placement in MBO were reviewed.Expert commentary: The placement of colonic SEMS for palliation and for BTS in patients with MBO has been increasingly reported and it seems to have several advantages over emergency surgery. Substantial concerns of tumor seeding following SEMS placement, especially in case of perforation, have been raised in numerous studies. Actually, no significant differences are reported in oncologic long-term survival between patients undergoing stent placement as a BTS and those undergoing emergency surgery. Considering all the mentioned factors, indication for colorectal stenting should be evaluated only in highly specialized centers, in the context of multidisciplinary approach where risks and benefits of stenting are carefully weighed, especially in the BTS setting.

A National study on the adoption of laparoscopic colorectal surgery in the elderly population: current state and value proposition

BACKGROUND

The economic and clinical benefits of laparoscopic colorectal surgery are proven, yet may be underutilized in appropriate cases, especially in the elderly. Since the elderly constitute the greatest colorectal surgical volume, our goal was to identify trends in utilization and impact of laparoscopy in this cohort.

METHODS

A national review of elective inpatient colorectal resections from the Premier Inpatient Database between 2010 and 2015 was performed. Patients were included if elderly (≥ 65 years), then grouped into open or laparoscopic procedures. The main outcome measures were trends in utilization by approach and total costs for the episode of care, length of stay (LOS), readmission, and complications by approach in the elderly. Multivariable regression models controlled for differences across platforms, adjusting for patient demographic, comorbidities and hospital characteristics.

RESULTS

In 70,655 elderly patients evaluated, laparoscopic adoption remained lower than open throughout the study period. Rates increased until 2013, then declined, with increasing rates of open surgery. Laparoscopy was associated with significantly lower mean total costs ($4012 less/case), complications and readmissions (36% and 33% less, respectively), and shorter LOS (2.6 less days) than open cases (all p < 0.0001). When complications occurred, they were less severe and the readmission episodes were less costly with laparoscopy than open colorectal surgery.

CONCLUSION

The adoption of laparoscopy in the elderly has lagged behind open surgery and even declined in recent years despite being associated with improved clinical outcomes and reduced cost. With this tremendous value proposition to increase use of laparoscopic surgery in the elderly, further work needs to evaluate root causes of the disparity.

Acute abdominal obstruction: Colon stent or emergency surgery? An evidence-based review

According to the American Cancer Society and Colorectal Cancer Statistics 2017, colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common malignancies in the United States and the second leading cause of cancer death in the world in 2018. Previous studies demonstrated that 8%-29% of patients with primary CRC present malignant colonic obstruction (MCO). In the past, emergency surgery has been the primary treatment for MCO, although morbidity and surgical mortality rates are higher in these settings than in elective procedures. In the 1990s, self-expanding metal stents appeared and was a watershed in the treatment of patients in gastrointestinal surgical emergencies. The studies led to high expectations because the use of stents could prevent surgical intervention, such as colostomy, leading to lower morbidity and mortality, possibly resulting in higher quality of life. This review was designed to provide present evidence of the indication, technique, outcomes, benefits, and risks of these treatments in acute MCO through the analysis of previously published studies and current guidelines.

Quality of life following ostomy reversal with purse-string vs linear skin closure: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The importance of the defunctioning stoma on minimizing anastomotic leak in colorectal surgery is well established. However, a defunctioning stoma can substantially impact on quality of life (QoL). Circumferential purse-string approximation (PSA) and linear skin closure (LSC) are the most commonly performed surgical technique for reversal of stoma. The aim of this review was to systemically review and meta-analyze available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PSA and LSC.

METHODS

An electronic systematic search using MEDLINE databases (PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science) of RCTs comparing PSA and LSC was performed. Eight RCTs totalling 647 patients met the inclusion criteria and were included in this meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Patient's satisfaction is significantly lower in PSA group during the first postoperative week, but it sharply improves afterwards and no difference were noted at 1 and 6 months between the two groups. Relative risk (RR) of developing a SSI is significantly lower in PSA compared to LSC group (RR 0.16 95% CI 0.09; 0.30; p = 0.0001), whereas incisional hernia (RR 0.53 95% CI 0.08; 3.53; p = 0.512), operative time (MD - 0.06 95% CI - 0.30; 0.17; p = 0.593), and hospital stay (MD - 0.09 (95% CI - 0.29-0.11; p = 0.401) remain similar.

DISCUSSION

QoL was similar in both patients groups after the first postoperative week. PSA significantly reduced SSI rate. No difference was observed in incisional hernia rate, operative time, or length of hospital stay.