HAnd Suture Versus STApling for Closure of Loop Ileostomy (HASTA Trial): results of a multicenter randomized trial (DRKS00000040). Ann Surg. 2012;256:828-835; discussion 835-836. [PMID: 23095628 DOI: 10.1097/sla.0b013e318272df97]

Morbidity, mortality, cost, and survival estimates of gastrointestinal anastomotic leaks

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic leak, a potentially deadly postoperative occurrence, particularly interests surgeons performing gastrointestinal procedures. We investigated incidence, cost, and impact on survival of anastomotic leak in gastrointestinal surgical procedures at an academic center.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a chart review of American College of Surgeons NSQIP operative procedures with gastrointestinal anastomosis from January 1, 2003 through April 30, 2006. Each case with an American College of Surgeons NSQIP 30-day postoperative complication was systematically reviewed for evidence of anastomotic leak for 12 months after the operative date. We tracked patients for up to 10 years to determine survival. Morbidity, mortality, and cost for patients with gastrointestinal anastomotic leaks were compared with patients with anastomoses that remained intact.

RESULTS

Unadjusted analyses revealed significant differences between patients who had anastomotic leaks develop and those who did not: morbidity (98.0% vs. 28.4%; p < 0.0001), length of stay (13 vs. 5 days; p ≤ 0.0001), 30-day mortality (8.4% vs. 2.5%; p < 0.0001), long-term mortality (36.4% vs. 20.0%; p ≤ 0.0001), and hospital costs (chi-square [2] = 359.8; p < 0.0001). Multivariable regression demonstrated that anastomotic leak was associated with congestive heart failure (odds ratio [OR] = 31.5; 95% CI, 2.6-381.4; p = 0.007), peripheral vascular disease (OR = 4.6; 95% CI, 1.0-20.5; p = 0.048), alcohol abuse (OR = 3.7; 95% CI, 1.6-8.3; p = 0.002), steroid use (OR = 2.3; 95% CI: 1.1-5.0; p = 0.027), abnormal sodium (OR = 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2-0.7; p = 0.002), weight loss (OR = 0.2; 95% CI, 0.06-0.7; p = 0.011), and location of anastomosis: rectum (OR = 14.0; 95% CI, 2.6-75.5; p = 0.002), esophagus (OR = 13.0; 95% CI, 3.6-46.2; p < 0.0001), pancreas (OR = 12.4; 95% CI, 3.3-46.2; p < 0.0001), small intestine (OR = 6.9; 95% CI, 1.8-26.4; p = 0.005), and colon (OR = 5.2; 95% CI, 1.5-17.7; p = 0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

Significant morbidity, mortality, and cost accompany gastrointestinal anastomotic leaks. Patients who experience an anastomotic leak have lower rates of survival at 30 days and long term.

Evidence-based medicine in daily surgical decision making: a survey-based comparison between the UK and Germany

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based medicine (EbM) is a vital part of reasonable and conclusive decision making for clinicians in daily clinical work. To analyze the knowledge and the attitude of surgeons towards EbM, a survey was performed in the UK and Germany.

METHODS

A web-based questionnaire was distributed via mailing lists from the Royal College of Surgeons of England (RCSE) and the Berufsverband Deutscher Chirurgen (BDC). Our primary aim was to get information about knowledge of EbM amongst German and British surgeons.

RESULTS

A total of 549 individuals opened the questionnaire, but only 198 questionnaires were complete and valid for analysis. In total, 40,000 recipients were approached via the mailing lists of the BDC and RCSE. The response rate was equally low in both countries. On a scale from 1 (unimportant) to 10 (very important), all participants rated EbM as very important for daily clinical decision making (7.3 ± 1.9) as well as for patients (7.8 ± 1.9) and the national health system (7.8 ± 1.9). On a scale from 1 (unimportant) to 5 (very important), systematic reviews (4.6 ± 0.6) and randomized controlled trials (4.6 ± 0.6) were identified as the highest levels of study designs to enhance evidence in medicine. British surgeons considered EbM to be more important in daily clinical work when compared to data from German surgeons (7.9 ± 1.6 vs. 6.7 ± 2.1, p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis showed different results in some categories; however, a pattern to explain the differences was not evident. Personal requirements expressed in a free text field emphasized the results and reflected concerns such as broad unwillingness and lack of interdisciplinary approaches for patients (n = 59: 25 in the UK and 34 in Germany).

CONCLUSION

The overall results show that EbM is believed to be important by surgeons in the UK and Germany. However, perception of EbM in the respective health system (UK vs. Germany) may be different. Nonetheless, EbM is an important tool to navigate through daily clinical problems although a discrepancy between the knowledge of theoretical abstract terms and difficulties in implementing EbM in daily clinical work has been detected. The provision of infrastructure, courses and structured education as a permanent instrument will advance the knowledge, application and improvement of EbM in the future.

Increased postoperative complications after protective ileostomy closure delay: An institutional study

AIM: To study the morbidity and complications associated to ileostomy reversal in colorectal surgery patients, and if these are related to the time of closure.

METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 93 patients, who had undergone elective ileostomy closure between 2009 and 2013 was performed. Demographic, clinical and surgical variables were reviewed for analysis. All complications were recorded, and classified according to the Clavien-Dindo Classification. Statistical univariate and multivariate analysis was performed, setting a P value of 0.05 for significance.

RESULTS: The patients had a mean age of 60.3 years, 58% male. The main procedure for ileostomy creation was rectal cancer (56%), and 37% had received preoperative chemo-radiotherapy. The average delay from creation to closure of the ileostomy was 10.3 mo. Postoperative complications occurred in 40% of the patients, with 1% mortality. The most frequent were ileus (13%) and wound infection (13%). Pseudomembranous colitis appeared in 4%. Increased postoperative complications were associated with delay in ileostomy closure (P = 0.041). Male patients had more complications (P = 0.042), mainly wound infections (P = 0.007). Pseudomembranous colitis was also associated with the delay in ileostomy closure (P = 0.003). End-to-end intestinal anastomosis without resection was significantly associated with postoperative ileus (P = 0.037).

CONCLUSION: Although closure of a protective ileostomy is a fairly common surgical procedure, it has a high rate of complications, and this must be taken into account when the indication is made. The delay in stoma closure can increase the rate of complications in general, and specifically wound infections and colitis.

Meta-analysis of handsewn versus stapled reversal of loop ileostomy

BACKGROUND

The morbidity associated with closure of loop ileostomy (LI) may be attributed to the various surgical techniques employed for the closure. The purpose of this review was to review the hand-sutured (HS) versus the stapled anastomosis (SA) techniques, used in the reversal of LI.

METHODS

The MEDLINE, PubMed, CINHAL, Cochrane library and Web of Knowledge databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and case-control trials (CCTs), evaluating HS and SA in reversal of LI. Data extraction with risk of bias assessment was followed by subgroup and pooled data meta-analysis where applicable per outcome.

RESULTS

Four RCTs (HS: 321, SA: 328) and 10 CCTs (HS: 2808, SA: 1044) were identified, with a total of 4508 patients. Regardless of subgroup analysis, no difference was seen between the two techniques with regard to anastomotic leaks (P = 0.24, odds ratio (OR): 1.37, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.81-2.29) or re-operation. The stapled group showed a significantly lower rate of conservatively managed small bowel obstruction (SBO)/ ileus at 30 days (P < 0.001, OR: 2.27, 95% CI: 1.59-2.96) (P < 0.001) and SBO during combined short- and long-term follow-up (P < 0.001). The SA also showed significant shorter operative time (P = 0.02; WMD 11.52 min), time to first bowel opening (P < 0.001; WMD 0.52 days) and length of hospital stay (P = 0.03; WMD 0.70 days).

CONCLUSION

The stapled technique offers an advantage in terms of lower post-operative subacute SBO rates, a faster operative technique and shorter hospitalization times. These perceived benefits make it potentially superior to HS for the reversal of LI.

[Ileostomy closure in a colorectal surgery unit. Comparative analysis of different techniques]

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this study is to assess whether the results of loop ileostomy closure in terms of morbidity and hospital stay are influenced by the type of anastomosis and suture used.

METHOD

All patients who underwent loop ileostomy closure were reviewed. A retrospective cohort study comparing morbidity and hospital stay according to the type of anastomosis (TT/LL) and the type of suture (hand sewn/mechanical) was performed.

RESULTS

From January 2003 to November 2011 a total of 167 loop ileostomy closures were analized. The groups were: type of anastomosis (TT 95/LL 72) and type of suture (manual 105/stapled 62). In 76% of the observed population the underlying disease was cancer. Mortality occurred in one case. The stratified morbidity analysis by type of complications showed no significant differences between the groups in terms of local (7.4% TT, LL 8.3%, 6.7% hand sewn, stapled 9.7%), general (TT 9.5%, 16.7% LL, hand sewn 6.7%, 6.5% stapled) and surgical (TT 15.8%, 19.4% LL, hand sewn 17.1%, 17.7% stapled) complications, nor in the rate of reoperations (TT 6.3%, 6.9% LL, hand sewn 6.7%, 6.5% stapled) and hospital stay in days (TT 7.8, 8 LL, hand sewn 8.6, stapled 6.7) CONCLUSIONS: Closure of loop ileostomy can be performed regardless of the type of suture or anastomosis used, with the same rate of morbidity and hospital stay.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of published, randomized, controlled trials comparing suture anastomosis to stapled anastomosis for ileostomy closure

The objective of this article is to systematically analyze the randomized, controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of suture anastomosis (SUA) versus stapled anastomosis (STA) in patients undergoing ileostomy closure. Randomized, controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of SUA versus STA in patients undergoing ileostomy closure were analyzed using RevMan(®), and combined outcomes were expressed as odds risk ratio (OR) and standardized mean difference (SMD). Four randomized, controlled trials that recruited 645 patients were retrieved from electronic databases. There were 327 patients in the STA group and 318 patients in the SUA group. There was significant heterogeneity among included trials. Operative time (SMD -1.02; 95 % CI -1.89, -0.15; z = 2.29; p < 0.02) was shorter following STA compared to SUA. In addition, risk of small bowel obstruction (OR 0.54; 95 % confidence interval (CI), 0.30, 0.95; z = 2.13; p < 0.03) was lower in the STA group. Risk of anastomotic leak (OR 0.87; 95 % CI 0.12, 6.33; z = 0.14; p = 0.89), surgical site infection, reoperation and readmission were similar following STA and SUA in patients undergoing ileostomy closure. Length of hospital stay was also similar between STA and SUA groups. In ileostomy closure, STA was associated with shorter operative time and lower risk of postoperative small bowel obstruction. However, STA and SUA were similar in terms of anastomotic leak, surgical site infection, readmission, reoperations and length of hospital stay.

Stapled vs hand suture closure of loop ileostomy: a meta-analysis

AIM

Loop ileostomies are widely used in colorectal surgery to reduce the consequences of distal anastomotic failure. The optimal surgical technique for their closure has yet not been defined. A meta-analysis was performed to compare the outcome after stapled or hand sutured ileostomy closure.

METHOD

An electronic literature search of EMBASE, PubMed and the Cochrane Library was undertaken to identify studies reporting stapled and hand sutured ileostomy closure. End-points included postoperative small bowel obstruction (SBO), anastomotic leakage, wound infection, overall postoperative complications, operation time, hospital stay and surgery-related cost.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies including 5084 patients were identified. Meta-analysis showed that stapled closure was associated with a lower rate of SBO overall (OR = 0.56, P < 0.00001) and early (within 30 days of closure) SBO (OR = 0.51, P < 0.00001). This difference persisted for direct ileostomy closure (OR = 0.62, P = 0.02) or closure with bowel resection and hand sewn anastomosis (OR = 0.44, P < 0.00001). Stapled closure required a shorter inpatient stay (mean difference -1.22, P < 0.0001) and operating time (mean difference -11.21, P = 0.01). No significant difference was noted between the two techniques in terms of anastomotic leakage, wound infection, overall complications or cost.

CONCLUSION

Stapled side-to-side anastomosis is associated with fewer complications, especially SBO, than hand sewn ileostomy closure by direct suture or resection and anastomosis. It is quicker to perform and associated with fewer postoperative bowel obstructions.