Early versus standard closure of temporary ileostomy in patients with rectal cancer: A randomized controlled trial

Outcomes of Early Versus Standard Closure of Diverting Ileostomy After Proctectomy: Meta-analysis and Meta-regression Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to compare outcomes of early and standard closure of diverting loop ileostomy (DLI) after proctectomy and determine risk factors for anastomotic leak (AL) and complications.

BACKGROUND

Formation of DLI has been a routine practice after proctectomy to decrease the incidence and potential adverse sequela of AL.

METHODS

PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared outcomes of early versus standard closure of DLI after proctectomy. Main outcome measures were postoperative complications, AL, ileus, surgical site infection, reoperation, readmission, and hospital stay following DLI closure.

RESULTS

Eleven RCTs (932 patients; 57% male) were included. Early closure group included 474 patients and standard closure 458 patients. Early closure was associated with higher odds of AL [odds ratio (OR): 2.315, P =0.013] and similar odds of complications (OR: 1.103, P =0.667), ileus (OR: 1.307, P =0.438), surgical site infection (OR: 1.668, P =0.079), reoperation (OR: 1.896, P =0.062), and readmission (OR: 3.431, P =0.206). Hospital stay was similar (weighted mean difference: 1.054, P =0.237). Early closure had higher odds of AL than standard closure when early closure was done ≤2 weeks (OR: 2.12, P =0.047) but not within 3 to 4 weeks (OR: 2.98, P =0.107). Factors significantly associated with complications after early closure were diabetes mellitus, smoking, and closure of DLI ≤2 weeks, whereas factors associated with AL were ≥ American Society of Anesthesiologists II classification and diabetes mellitus.

CONCLUSIONS

Early closure of DLI after proctectomy has a higher risk of AL, particularly within 2 weeks of DLI formation. On the basis of this study, routine early ileostomy closure cannot be recommended.

Outcome of early versus late ileostomy closure in patients with rectal cancers undergoing low anterior resection: A prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Protective loop ileostomy is performed following low anterior resection (LAR) in patients with rectal cancer to reduce the complications of primary anastomosis. The optimal timing for ileostomy closure remains controversial. The aim of the current study was to compare the effects of early (<2 weeks) versus late (≥2 months) closure of the stoma in patients with rectal cancer undergoing LAR on surgical outcome and complications rates.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study was conducted in two referral centers in Shiraz, Iran, during a 2-year period. We have consecutively and prospectively included adult patients with rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent LAR followed by protective loop ileostomy in our center during the study period. The baseline, tumor characteristics and complication as well as outcome was recorded in a 1-year follow-up and was compared between early and late ileostomy closure.

RESULTS

Overall, 69 patients (32 in early and 37 in late group) were included. The mean age of the patients was 59.40 ± 9.30 years and there were 46 (66.7%) men and 23 (33.3%) women. Patients undergoing early closure of the ileostomy had significantly shorter operation duration (p<0.001) and lower intraoperative bleeding (p<0.001) compared to late ileostomy closure. There was no significant difference between two study groups regarding the complications. Early closure was also not found to be a predictive factor of post-ileostomy closure complications.

CONCLUSION

Early closure (<2 weeks) of ileostomy after LAR in patients with rectal adenocarcinoma is a safe and feasible technique which is associated with favorable outcome.

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.

Risk Factors for Radical Rectal Cancer Surgery with a Temporary Stoma Becoming a Permanent Stoma: A Pooling Up Analysis

Purpose: The aim of this study was to find out the potential risk factors for the formation of a permanent stoma (PS) for rectal cancer patients with a temporary stoma (TS) after surgery. Methods: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for eligible studies until November 14, 2022. The patients were divided into the PS group and the TS group. Odds ratio (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled up for describing dichotomous variables. Stata SE 16 was performed for data analysis. Results: After pooling up the data, a total of 14 studies involving 14,265 patients were included in this study. The outcomes showed that age (OR = 1.03, 95% CI = 0.96 to 1.10, I2 = 1.42%, P = .00 < .1), surgery type (P = .00 < .1), tumor stage (P = .00 < .1), preoperative chemoradiotherapy (P = .00 < .1), preoperative radiotherapy (P = .01 < .1), neoadjuvant therapy (P = .00 < .1), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score of ≥3 (P = .00 < .1), anastomotic leakage (P = .01 < .1), local recurrence (P = .00 < .1), and distant recurrence (P = .00 < .1) were associated with the patient with PS. However, sex (P = .15 > .1), previous abdominal surgery (P = .84 > .1), adjuvant chemotherapy (P = .87 > .1), and defunctioning stoma (P = .1) had little association with PS. Conclusion: Patients who were elderly, had advanced tumor stages, had a high ASA score, and underwent neoadjuvant therapy should be informed of the high risk of PS before surgery. Meanwhile, those who underwent rectal cancer surgery with a TS should beware of anastomotic leakage, local recurrences, and distant recurrences, which could increase the risk of PS.

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.

Early closure compared to late closure of temporary ileostomy in rectal cancer: a randomized controlled trial study

BACKGROUND

A temporary loop ileostomy is one of the most common methods for the prevention of anastomotic leakage in rectal cancer patients who underwent low anterior resection. However, the optimal timing of loop ileostomy reversal remains unknown. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the debilitating complications caused by early closure of ileostomy in comparison with late closure in rectal cancer patients.

DESIGN

A randomized, controlled, unblinded, and monocentric trial.

METHODS

A total of 104 rectal cancer patients were randomly assigned to the case group of early closure of ileostomy (n = 50) and the control group of late closure of ileostomy (n = 54). This trial was undertaken in a single colorectal institution, a university-affiliated teaching hospital in Tehran, Iran. Randomization and allocation to the trial group were conducted by using variable block randomization based on quadruple numbers. The primary endpoint of this trial was determined by the complications of early ileostomy closure versus those of late closure in rectal cancer patients who had undergone low anterior resection. In early closure, loop ileostomy is reversed 2-3 weeks after the first two courses of adjuvant chemotherapy, while in late closure, the ileostomy is reversed 2-3 weeks after the last course of adjuvant chemotherapy.

RESULTS

Follow-up of 1 year demonstrated a reduction in the risk of complications and an improved quality of life in patients with rectal cancer following low anterior resection and chemotherapy (neoadjuvant and adjuvant) in the case group but did not reach a significant difference (p = 0.555). In addition, there was no significant difference in perioperative outcomes, such as blood loss, operative time, readmission, and reoperation; also, no statistically significant differences were reported between the groups in patients' quality of life or LARS score.

CONCLUSION

In summary, it seems that early closure of ileostomy is not better than late closure in improving patients' quality of life with rectal cancer following low anterior resection and chemotherapy (neoadjuvant and adjuvant); no statistical difference was observed for reduction of risk of ostomy complications. Thus, neither of these methods (early closure versus late closure) is superior to the other, and controversy still exists.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER AND DATE OF REGISTRATION

IRCT20201113049373N1.

Early versus late reversal of diverting loop ileostomy in rectal cancer surgery: a multicentre randomized controlled trial

Diverting loop ileostomy has become routine in low anterior resection (LAR) for rectal cancer. The optimal time for stoma reversal is controversial. The aim of the present study was to compare the results after planned early (within 8-12 days) versus late (> 3 months) stoma reversal. The primary outcomes were morbidity and mortality, as measured by the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI) within 30 days after stoma reversal, and the secondary outcomes were morbidity and mortality within 90 days after LAR. This was a multicentre trial including all patients scheduled for anterior low resection for rectal cancer with curative intent. Inclusion period was from April 2011 to December 2018. All patients were randomized 1:1 prior to surgery. Among 257 consecutive and eligible patients, a total of 214 patients were randomized: 107 patients to early stoma reversal and 107 to late reversal. A total of 68 patients were excluded for various reasons, and 146 patients completed the study, with 77 in the early reversal group and 69 in the late reversal group. The patients were asked to complete the Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index before surgery (baseline) and at 6 and 12 months after LAR. Ostomy-related complications were evaluated by dedicated ostomy staff using the validated DET score. ClinicalTrials Identifier: NCT01865071. Fifty-three patients (69%) in the early reversal group and 60 patients (87%) in the late reversal group received the intended treatment. There were no significant differences in CCI within 90 days after index surgery with the LAR and within 30 days after stoma reversal between the two groups. There were no differences in patient-reported quality of life but significantly more stoma-related complications in the late reversal group. A total of 5 patients experienced anastomotic leakage (AL) after stoma reversal, 4 in the early reversal group and one in the late reversal group. Early and late stoma reversal showed similar outcomes in terms of overall complications and quality of life. The risk of developing anastomotic leakage after early ostomy reversal is a concern.

High Complication Rate After Early Ileostomy Closure: Early Termination of the Short Versus Long Interval to Loop Ileostomy Reversal After Pouch Surgery Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

In patients with ulcerative colitis who undergo IPAA, a diverting ileostomy is used to diminish the severity of anastomotic complications. Typically, the ileostomy is closed after an interval of 2 to 4 months. The safety of earlier closure of the ileostomy after pouch surgery is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare postoperative outcomes in patients randomly assigned to early (7-12 days) or late (≥8 weeks) ileostomy closure after ileal pouch construction.

DESIGN

This was a multicenter, prospective randomized trial.

SETTING

The study was conducted at colorectal surgical units at select United States hospitals.

PATIENTS

Adults with ulcerative colitis who underwent 2- or 3-stage proctocolectomy with IPAA were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes included Comprehensive Complication Index at 30 days after ileostomy closure. The secondary outcomes included complications, severe complications, reoperations, and readmissions within 30 days of ileostomy closure.

RESULTS

The trial was stopped after interim analysis because of a high rate of complications after early ileostomy closure. Among 36 patients analyzed, 1 patient (3%) had unplanned proctectomy with end-ileostomy. Of the remaining 35 patients, 28 patients (80%) were clinically eligible for early closure and underwent radiologic assessment. There were 3 radiologic failures. Of the 25 remaining patients, 22 patients (88%) were randomly assigned to early closure (n = 10) or late closure (n = 12), and 3 patients were excluded. Median Comprehensive Complication Index was 14.8 (0-54) and 0 (0-23) after early and late closure (p = 0.02). One or more complications occurred in 7 patients (70%) after early closure and in 2 patients (17%) after late closure (p = 0.01)' and complications were severe in 3 patients (30%) after early closure and 0 patients after late closure (p = 0.04). Reoperation was required in 1 patient (10%) and 0 patients (p = 0.26) after early closure and readmission was required in 7 patients (70%) and 1 patient (8%) after late closure (p = 0.003).

LIMITATIONS

This study was limited by early study closure and selection bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Early closure of a diverting ileostomy in patients with ulcerative colitis who underwent IPAA is associated with an unacceptably high rate of complications. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/C68.

ALTA TASA DE COMPLICACIONES DESPUS DEL CIERRE PRECOZ DE LA ILEOSTOMA TERMINACIN TEMPRANA DEL ENSAYO ALEATORIZADO DE INTERVALO CORTO VERSUS LARGO PARA LA REVERSIN DE LA ILEOSTOMA EN ASA DESPUS DE LA CIRUGA DE RESERVORIO ILEAL

ANTECEDENTES:En los pacientes con colitis ulcerosa que se someten a una anastomosis del reservorio ileoanal, se utiliza una ileostomía de derivación para disminuir la gravedad de las complicaciones de la anastomosis. Por lo general, la ileostomía se cierra después de un intervalo de 2 a 4 meses. Se desconoce la seguridad del cierre más temprano de la ileostomía después de la cirugía de reservorio.OBJETIVO:Comparar los resultados posoperatorios en pacientes asignados al azar al cierre temprano (7-12 días) o tardío (≥ 8 semanas) de la ileostomía después de la construcción de un reservorio ileal.DISEÑO:Este fue un ensayo aleatorizado prospectivo multicéntrico.ESCENARIO:El estudio se realizó en unidades quirúrgicas colorrectales en hospitales seleccionados de los Estados Unidos.PACIENTES:Se incluyeron adultos con colitis ulcerosa que se sometieron a proctocolectomía en 2 o 3 tiempos con anastomosis ileoanal con reservorio.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Los resultados primarios incluyeron el Índice Integral de Complicaciones a los 30 días después del cierre de la ileostomía. Los resultados secundarios incluyeron complicaciones, complicaciones graves, reoperaciones y readmisiones dentro de los 30 días posteriores al cierre de la ileostomía.RESULTADOS:El ensayo se detuvo después del análisis interino debido a una alta tasa de complicaciones después del cierre temprano de la ileostomía. Entre los 36 pacientes analizados, 1 (3%) tuvo una proctectomía no planificada con ileostomía terminal. De los 35 pacientes restantes, 28 (80%) fueron clínicamente elegibles para el cierre temprano y se sometieron a una evaluación radiológica. Hubo 3 fracasos radiológicos. De los 25 pacientes restantes, 22 (88 %) se asignaron al azar a cierre temprano (n = 10) o tardío (n = 12) y 3 fueron excluidos. La mediana del Índice Integral de Complicaciones fue de 14,8 (0-54) y 0 (0-23) después del cierre temprano y tardío (p = 0,02). Una o más complicaciones ocurrieron en 7 pacientes (70%) después del cierre temprano y 2 (17%) pacientes después del cierre tardío (p = 0,01) y fueron graves en 3 (30%) y 0 pacientes, respectivamente (p = 0,04). Requirieron reintervención en 1 (10%) y 0 (p = 0,26) y reingreso en 7 (70%) y 1 (8%) pacientes (p = 0,003).LIMITACIONES:Este estudio estuvo limitado por el cierre temprano del estudio; sesgo de selección.CONCLUSIONES:El cierre temprano de una ileostomía de derivación en pacientes con colitis ulcerosa con anastomosis de reservorio ileoanal se asocia con una tasa inaceptablemente alta de complicaciones. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/C68. (Traducción-Dr. Felipe Bellolio).

Patient and surgeon preferences for early ileostomy closure following restorative proctectomy for rectal cancer: why aren't we doing it?

BACKGROUND

Early ileostomy closure (EIC), ≤ 2 weeks from creation, is a relatively new practice. Multiple studies have demonstrated that this approach is safe, feasible, and cost-effective. Despite the demonstrated benefits, this is neither routine practice, nor has it been studied, in North America. This study aimed to assess patient and surgeon perspectives about EIC.

METHODS

A mixed-methods, cross-sectional study of patients and surgeons was performed. Rectal cancer survivors from a single institution who underwent restorative proctectomy with diverting loop ileostomy and subsequent closure within the last 5 years were contacted. North American surgeons with high rectal cancer volumes (> 20 cases/year) were included. Surveys (patients) and semi-structured interviews (surgeons) were conducted. Analysis employed descriptive statistics and thematic analysis, respectively.

RESULTS

Forty-eight patients were surveyed (mean age 65.1 ± 11.8 years; 54.2% male). Stoma closure occurred after a median of 7.7 months (IQR 4.8-10.9) and 50.0% (24) found it "difficult" or "very difficult" to live with their stoma. Patients considered improvement in quality of life and quicker return to normal function the most important advantages of EIC, whereas the idea of two operations in two weeks being too taxing on the body was deemed the biggest disadvantage. Most patients (35, 72.9%) would have opted for EIC. Surgeon interviews (15) revealed 4 overarching themes: (1) there are many benefits to EIC; (2) specific patient characteristics would make EIC an appropriate option; (3) many barriers to implementing EIC exist; and (4) many logistical hurdles need to be addressed for successful implementation. Most surgeons (12, 80.0%) would "definitely want to participate" in a North American randomized-controlled trial (RCT) on EIC for rectal cancer patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementing EIC poses many logistical challenges. Both patients and surgeons are interested in further exploring EIC and believe it warrants a North American RCT to motivate a change in practice.

Closure timing of a temporary ileostomy in patients with rectal cancer undergoing anus-preserving operation: a retrospective cohort study

PURPOSE

To investigate the optimal closure time of a temporary ileostomy in patients with rectal cancer receiving anus-preserving operation.

METHODS

Patients with rectal cancer were enrolled from the Affiliated Hospital of Jiangsu University from May 2010 to June 2019. The eligible patients were grouped according to their actual ileostomy closure time after stoma creation. Outcomes were complications during stoma closure and complications within one year after stoma closure.

RESULTS

This study included 361 qualified subjects, with 108 patients in the 3-5 months group, 133 in the 5-7 months group and 120 in the ≥ 7 months group. Compared with the risk of complications during stoma closure in the 3-5 months group, that in the 5-7 months group was significantly reduced (odds ratio [OR]: 0.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.13-0.99), and that in the ≥ 7 months group was significantly increased (OR: 5.88, 95% CI 2.38-14.56). In contrast to the 3-5 months group, the 5-7 months group showed a significantly decreased risk (OR: 0.21, 95% CI 0.07-0.67), and the ≥ 7 months group showed a significantly increased risk (OR: 4.21, 95% CI 1.61-11.01) of complications within 1 year after stoma closure.

CONCLUSION

5-7 months after the ileostomy is created may be the optimal time for its closure.

Early vs. standard reversal ileostomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Formation of a defunctioning loop ileostomy is common after mid and low rectal resection. Historically, they were reversed between 3 and 6 months after initial resection. Recently, earlier closure (< 14 days) has been suggested by some current randomised controlled trials. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of early stoma closure on surgical and patient outcomes.

Methods

A systematic review of the current randomised controlled trial literature comparing early and standard ileostomy closure after rectal surgery was performed. Specifically, we examined surgical outcomes including; morbidity, mortality and quality of life.

Results

Six studies met the predefined criteria and were included in our analysis. 275 patients underwent early stoma closure compared with 259 patients having standard closure. Overall morbidity was similar between both groups (25.5% vs. 21.6%) (OR, 1.47; 95% CI 0.75–2.87). However, there tended to be more reoperations (8.4 vs. 4.2%) (OR, 2.02, 95% CI 0.99–4.14) and small bowel obstructions/postoperative ileus (9.3% vs. 4.4%) (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.22–0.90) in the early closure group, but no difference across the other domains.

Conclusions

Early closure appears to be a feasible in highly selective cases after good perioperative counselling and shared decision-making. Further research on quality of life outcomes and long term benefits is necessary to help define which patients are suitable candidates for early closure.

Bowel Rest with Total Parenteral Nutrition as an Alternative to Diverting Ileostomy in High-Risk Colorectal Anastomosis: A Pilot Study

Anastomotic leakage remains the most feared complication in colorectal surgery. Various intraoperative tests evaluate bowel perfusion and mechanical integrity of the colorectal anastomosis. These tests reduce the risk of postoperative anastomotic leakage; however, the incidence remains high. Diverting loop ileostomy mitigates the damage if anastomotic leakage occurs. Nevertheless, ileostomy has a significant rate of complications, reducing patients’ quality of life, and requiring an additional operation. We evaluated six consecutive cases where bowel rest with total parenteral nutrition was used instead of diverting loop ileostomy. All colorectal anastomoses were at high risk of postoperative anastomotic leakage. Total parenteral nutrition was administered for the first seven days postoperatively. There were no serious complications during the recovery period, and no clinical postoperative anastomotic leakage was detected. All patients tolerated total parenteral nutrition. Bowel rest with total parenteral nutrition may be a feasible option in high-risk left-sided colorectal anastomosis and a possible alternative to a preventive loop ileostomy. Further studies are necessary to evaluate it on a larger scale.

Comprehensive testing of colorectal anastomosis: results of prospective observational cohort study

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic leakage remains one of the most threatening complications in colorectal surgery. Intraoperative testing of anastomosis may reduce the postoperative anastomotic leakage rates. This study aimed to investigate a novel comprehensive intraoperative colorectal anastomosis testing technique to detect the failure of the anastomosis construction and to reduce the risk of postoperative leak.

METHODS

This multi-centre prospective cohort pilot study included 60 patients who underwent colorectal resection with an anastomosis at or below 15 cm from the anal verge. Comprehensive trimodal testing consisted of indocyanine green fluorescence angiography, tension testing, air-leak, and methylene blue leak tests to evaluate the perfusion, tension, and mechanical integrity of the anastomosis.

RESULTS

Ten (16.7%) patients developed an anastomotic leakage. Trimodal test was positive in 16 (26.6%) patients and the operative plan was changed for all of them. Diverting ileostomy was performed in 14 (87.5%) patients. However, two (12.5%) patients still developed clinically significant anastomotic leakage (Grade B). Forty-four (73.4%) patients had a negative trimodal test, preventive ileostomy was performed in 19 (43.2%), and five (11.4%) patients had clinically significant anastomotic leakage (Grade B and C).

CONCLUSION

Trimodal testing identifies anastomoses with initial technical failure where reinforcement of anastomosis or diversion can lead to an acceptable rate of anastomotic leakage. Identification of well-performed anastomosis could allow a reduction of ileostomy rate by two-fold. However, anastomotic leakage rate remains high in technically well-performed anastomoses.

Early versus delayed defunctioning ileostomy closure after low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of safety and functional outcomes

PURPOSE

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis (TSA) to answer whether early closure of defunctioning ileostomy may be suitable after low anterior resection.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched, up to October 2021, for RCTs comparing early closure (EC ≤ 30 days) and delayed closure (DC ≥ 60 days) of defunctioning ileostomy. The risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI was calculated for dichotomous variables and the mean difference (MD) with 95% CI for continuous variables. The GRADE methodology was implemented for assessing Quality of Evidence (QoE). TSA was implemented to address the risk of random error associated with sparse data and/or multiple testing.

RESULTS

Seven RCTs were included for quantitative synthesis. 599 patients were allocated to either EC (n = 306) or DC (n = 293). EC was associated with a higher rate of wound complications compared to DC (RR 2.56; 95% CI 1.33 to 4.93; P = 0.005; I² = 0%, QoE High), a lower incidence of postoperative small bowel obstruction (RR 0.46; 95% CI 0.24 to 0.89; P = 0.02; I² = 0%, QoE moderate), and a lower rate of stoma-related complications (RR 0.26; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.42; P < 0.00001; I² = 0%, QoE moderate). The rate of minor low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) (RR 1.13; 95% CI 0.55 to 2.33; P = 0.74; I² = 0%, QoE low) and major LARS (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.59 to 1.09; P = 0.16; I² = 0%, QoE low) did not differ between the two groups. TSA demonstrated inconclusive evidence with insufficient sample sizes to detect the observed effects.

CONCLUSION

EC may confer some advantages compared with a DC. However, TSA advocated a cautious interpretation of the results.

PROSPERO REGISTER ID

CRD42021276557.

Split stoma with delayed anastomosis may be preferred for 2-stage surgical resection in high-risk patients with Crohn's disease

BACKGROUND

Fecal diversion after bowel resection is a safe and effective procedure in high-risk patients with Crohn's disease, but the better approach between primary anastomosis with protective stoma and split stoma with delayed anastomosis has not yet been investigated. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of these approaches in high-risk patients with Crohn's disease.

METHODS

A retrospective investigation on consecutive high-risk patients with Crohn's disease was conducted at a tertiary referral hospital from August 2009 to March 2019. The primary outcomes were the overall early postoperative complications and overall anastomosis-related adverse events in an intention-to-treat approach.

RESULTS

A total of 118 consecutive patients who underwent 121 surgeries (35 procedures with a protective stoma and 86 procedures with a split stoma) were enrolled. After a median follow-up period of 659 days and 728 days, respectively, 25 patients underwent a stoma-reversal procedure in the protective-stoma group, and 54 patients underwent delayed anastomosis in the split stoma group. Overall, early 30-day surgical morbidity and anastomosis-related adverse events were observed in more patients in the protective-stoma group than in the split-stoma group (51.4% [18/35] vs 30.2% [26/86]; P = .028 and 37.1% [13/35] vs 2.3% [2/86]; P < .001, respectively; intention-to-treat analysis). Similar results were found in the per-protocol analysis (44.0% [11/25] vs 20.4% [11/54]; P = .029 and 36.0% [12/25] vs 3.7% [2/54]; P < .001, respectively.) CONCLUSION: Split stoma with delayed anastomosis is associated with a reduction in anastomotic adverse events and overall early surgical complications and thus may be a better surgical option for high-risk patients with Crohn's disease.

Closure of Temporary Ileostomy 2 Versus 12 Weeks After Rectal Resection for Cancer: A Word of Caution From a Prospective, Randomized Controlled Multicenter Trial

BACKGROUND

The optimum timing for temporary ileostomy closure after low anterior resection is still open.

OBJECTIVE

This trial aimed to compare early (2 wk) versus late (12 wk) stoma closure.

DESIGN

The study included 2 parallel groups in a multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial.

SETTINGS

The study was conducted at 3 Swiss hospitals.

PATIENTS

Patients undergoing low anterior resection and temporary ileostomy for cancer were included.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomly allocated to early or late stoma closure. Before closure, colonic anastomosis was examined for integrity.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary efficacy outcome was the Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index 6 weeks after resection. Secondary end points included safety (morbidity), feasibility, and quality of life 4 months after low anterior resection.

RESULTS

The trial was stopped for safety concerns after 71 patients were randomly assigned to early closure (37 patients) or late closure (34 patients). There were comparable baseline data between the groups. No difference in quality of life occurred 6 weeks (mean Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index: 99.8 vs 106.0; p = 0.139) and 4 months (108.6 vs 107.1; p = 0.904) after index surgery. Intraoperative tendency of oozing (visual analog scale: 35.8 vs 19.3; p = 0.011), adhesions (visual analog scale: 61.3 vs 46.2; p = 0.034), leak of colonic anastomosis (19% vs 0%; p = 0.012), leak of colonic or ileal anastomosis (24% vs 0%; p = 0.002), and reintervention (16% vs 0%; p = 0.026) were significantly higher after early closure. The concept of early closure failed in 10 patients (27% vs 0% in the late closure group (95% CI for the difference, 9.4%-44.4%)).

LIMITATIONS

The trial was prematurely stopped because of safety issues. The aimed group size was not reached.

CONCLUSIONS

Early stoma closure does not provide better quality of life up to 4 months after low anterior resection but is afflicted with significantly adverse feasibility and higher morbidity when compared with late closure. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B665.

CIERRE DE LA ILEOSTOMA TEMPORAL VERSUS SEMANAS POSTERIOR A LA RESECCIN RECTAL POR CNCER UNA ADVERTENCIA DE UN ESTUDIO MULTICNTRICO CONTROLADO RANDOMIZADO PROSPECTIVO

ANTECEDENTES:El momento óptimo para el cierre temporal de la ileostomía posterior a la resección anterior baja es aun controversial.OBJETIVO:Este estudio tuvo como objetivo comparar el cierre del estoma temprano (2 semanas) versus tardío (12 semanas).DISEÑO:Estudio clínico controlado, randomizado, multicéntrico, de dos grupos paralelos.ENTORNO CLINICO:El estudio se llevó a cabo en 3 hospitales suizos.PACIENTES:Se incluyeron pacientes sometidos a resección anterior baja e ileostomía temporal por cáncer.INTERVENCIONES:Los pacientes fueron asignados aleatoriamente al cierre del estoma temprano o tardío. Antes del cierre, se examinó la integridad de la anastomosis colónica.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACION:El principal resultado de eficacia fue el Índice de Calidad de Vida Gastrointestinal 6 semanas después de la resección. Los criterios secundarios incluyeron la seguridad (morbilidad), factibilidad y calidad de vida 4 meses posterior a la resección anterior baja.RESULTADOS:El estudio se detuvo por motivos de seguridad después de que 71 pacientes fueron asignados aleatoriamente a cierre temprano (37 pacientes) o cierre tardío (34 pacientes). Hubo datos de referencia comparables entre los grupos. No se produjeron diferencias en la calidad de vida 6 semanas (índice de calidad de vida gastrointestinal, media 99,8 vs. 106; p = 0,139) y 4 meses (108,6 vs 107,1, p = 0,904) después de la cirugía inicial. Tendencia intraoperatoria de supuración (escala analógica visual 35,8 vs 19,3, p = 0,011), adherencias (escala analógica visual 61,3 vs 46,2, p = 0,034), fuga de anastomosis colónica (19% vs 0%, p = 0,012), fuga de anastomosis colónica o ileal (24% vs 0%, p = 0,002) y reintervención (16% vs 0%, p = 0,026) fueron significativamente mayores después del cierre temprano. El concepto de cierre temprano fracasó en 10 pacientes (27% vs ninguno en el grupo de cierre tardío (intervalo de confianza del 95% para la diferencia: 9,4% a 44,4%)).LIMITACIONES:El estudio se detuvo prematuramente debido a problemas de seguridad. No se alcanzó el tamaño del grupo previsto.CONCLUSIÓN:El cierre temprano del estoma no proporciona una mejor calidad de vida hasta 4 meses posterior a una resección anterior baja, esto se ve afectado por efectos adversos significativos durante su realización y una mayor morbilidad en comparación con el cierre tardío. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B665.

Improving postoperative outcome in rectal cancer surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery in an era of increasing laparoscopic resection

PURPOSE

The Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol reduces complications and length of stay (LOS) in colon cancer, but implementation in rectal cancer is different because of neo-adjuvant therapy and surgical differences. Laparoscopic resection may further improve outcome. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of introducing ERAS on postoperative outcome after rectal cancer resection in an era of increasing laparoscopic resections.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent elective rectal cancer surgery from 2009 till 2015 were included in this observational cohort study. In 2010, ERAS was introduced and adherence to the protocol was registered. Open and laparoscopic resections were compared. With regression analysis, predictive factors for postoperative outcome and LOS were identified.

RESULTS

A total of 499 patients were included. The LOS decreased from 12.3 days in 2009 to 5.7 days in 2015 (p = 0.000). Surgical site infections were reduced from 24% in 2009 to 5% in 2015 (p = 0.013) and postoperative ileus from 39% in 2009 to 6% in 2015 (p = 0.000). Only postoperative ERAS items and laparoscopic surgery were associated with an improved postoperative outcome and shorter LOS.

CONCLUSIONS

ERAS proved to be feasible, safe, and contributed to improving short-term outcome in rectal cancer resections. The benefits of laparoscopic surgery may in part be explained by reaching better ERAS adherence rates. However, the laparoscopic approach was also associated with anastomotic leakage. Despite the potential of bias, this study provides an insight in effects of ERAS and laparoscopic surgery in a non-randomized real-time setting.

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.

Multidisciplinary management of elderly patients with rectal cancer: recommendations from the SICG (Italian Society of Geriatric Surgery), SIFIPAC (Italian Society of Surgical Pathophysiology), SICE (Italian Society of Endoscopic Surgery and new technologies), and the WSES (World Society of Emergency Surgery) International Consensus Project

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Although rectal cancer is predominantly a disease of older patients, current guidelines do not incorporate optimal treatment recommendations for the elderly and address only partially the associated specific challenges encountered in this population. This results in a wide variation and disparity in delivering a standard of care to this subset of patients. As the burden of rectal cancer in the elderly population continues to increase, it is crucial to assess whether current recommendations on treatment strategies for the general population can be adopted for the older adults, with the same beneficial oncological and functional outcomes. This multidisciplinary experts' consensus aims to refine current rectal cancer-specific guidelines for the elderly population in order to help to maximize rectal cancer therapeutic strategies while minimizing adverse impacts on functional outcomes and quality of life for these patients.

METHODS

The discussion among the steering group of clinical experts and methodologists from the societies' expert panel involved clinicians practicing in general surgery, colorectal surgery, surgical oncology, geriatric oncology, geriatrics, gastroenterologists, radiologists, oncologists, radiation oncologists, and endoscopists. Research topics and questions were formulated, revised, and unanimously approved by all experts in two subsequent modified Delphi rounds in December 2020-January 2021. The steering committee was divided into nine teams following the main research field of members. Each conducted their literature search and drafted statements and recommendations on their research question. Literature search has been updated up to 2020 and statements and recommendations have been developed according to the GRADE methodology. A modified Delphi methodology was implemented to reach agreement among the experts on all statements and recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

The 2021 SICG-SIFIPAC-SICE-WSES consensus for the multidisciplinary management of elderly patients with rectal cancer aims to provide updated evidence-based statements and recommendations on each of the following topics: epidemiology, pre-intervention strategies, diagnosis and staging, neoadjuvant chemoradiation, surgery, watch and wait strategy, adjuvant chemotherapy, synchronous liver metastases, and emergency presentation of rectal cancer.

Clinical Effect of Radiotherapy Combined with Capecitabine after Neoadjuvant Therapy for Rectal Cancer

Objective

The purpose of the study was to investigate the clinical effect of radiotherapy combined with capecitabine in rectal cancer patients after neoadjuvant therapy.

Methods

80 rectal cancer patients who underwent neoadjuvant therapy in our hospital from February 2016 to February 2018 were selected as the study subjects and divided into the control group (n = 40) and experimental group (n = 40) according to the order of admission. Among them, the control group was treated with radiotherapy, while the experimental group was treated with radiotherapy combined with capecitabine. The therapeutic efficacy, CEA levels, the incidence and recurrence rate of adverse reactions, as well as the progression-free survival and survival rate after 2-year treatment were analyzed in the two groups.

Results

The effective rate of treatment in the experimental group of 87.5% (35/40) was significantly higher than 50% (20/40) in the control group, with statistical significance (X² = 13.09, P < 0.001). After treatment, the CEA levels in the two groups both decreased significantly, and the CEA level in the experimental group of 3.75 ± 1.76 ng/ml was significantly lower than 7.35 ± 2.11 ng/ml in the control group, with statistical significance (T = 8.29, P < 0.001). The incidence and the recurrence rate of adverse reactions of 5% (2/40) and 10% (4/40), respectively, in the experimental group were significantly lower than those of 40% (16/40) and 30% (12/40) in the control group, with statistical significance (X² = 14.05, 5.00, P < 0.001, 0.05). After the 2-year follow-up, it was found that the progression-free survival of 21.53 ± 6.23 months in the experimental group was significantly longer than that of 18.18 ± 5.41 months in the control group, with statistical significance (T = 2.57, P < 0.05), and the 2-year survival rate of 97.5% (39/40) in the experimental group was significantly higher than 80% (32/40) in the control group, with statistical significance (T = 6.13, P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Radiotherapy combined with capecitabine in rectal cancer patients after neoadjuvant therapy can improve the therapeutic efficacy with fewer adverse reactions and longer patients' survival, which is worthy of popularization and application after neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer.

Quality of Life and Bowel Function Following Early Closure of a Temporary Ileostomy in Patients with Rectal Cancer: A Report from a Single-Center Randomized Controlled Trial

The aim of this study was to assess quality of life and bowel function in patients undergoing early vs. standard ileostomy closure. We retrospectively assessed patients from our previous randomized controlled trial. Patients with a temporary ileostomy who underwent rectal cancer surgery and did not have anastomotic leakage or other. Early closure (EC; 30 days after creation) and standard closure (SC; 90 days after creation) of ileostomy were compared. Thirty-six months (17–97) after stoma closure, we contacted patients by phone and filled in two questionnaires—The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) and low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) score. This index trial was not powered to assess the difference in bowel function between the two groups. All the patients in the SC group had anastomosis <6 cm from the anal verge compared to 42 of 43 (97.7%) in the EC group. There were no statistically significant differences between EC (26 patients) and SC (25 patients) groups in the EORTC QLQ-C30 and LARS questionnaires. Global quality of life was 37.2 (0–91.7; ±24.9) in the EC group vs. 34.3 (0–100; ±16.2) in the SC (p = 0.630). Low anterior resection syndrome was present in 46% of patients in the EC and 56% in the SC group (p = 0.858). Major LARS was found more often in younger patients. However, no statistical significance was found (p = 0.364). The same was found with quality of life (p = 0.219). Age, gender, ileostomy closure timing, neoadjuvant treatment, complications had no effect of worse bowel function or quality of life. There was no difference in quality of life or bowel function in the late postoperative period after the early vs. late closure of ileostomy based on two questionnaires and small sample size. None of our assessed risk factors had a negative effect on bowel function o quality of life.

Safety of early ileostomy closure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

Patients with a defunctioning ileostomy after rectal resection experience substantial ileostomy-related morbidity and decreased quality of life. Early reversal of the defunctioning ileostomy has been proposed as a method of mitigating these problems. We aimed to evaluate the safety of early ileostomy closure within 6 weeks.

METHOD

Randomized controlled trials investigating the safety of early ileostomy closure were identified through a systematic search and review of the current literature. Meta-analysis of the extracted outcome data was performed, and the methodological quality of the individual studies was assessed.

RESULTS

The search identified six eligible studies yielding a total of 528 patients, with 269 in the early closure (EC) group and 259 in the standard closure (SC) group. Major complications in the EC group was 5.2% compared with 3.6% in the SC group (RR = 1.12, 95% CI 0.33-3.79). Anastomotic leakage in the EC group was 3.3% compared with 3.5% in the SC group (RR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.29-2.75). The meta-analysis resulted in no statistically significant differences between the groups in any of the primary or secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSION

This review was not able to discern a statistically significant difference in postoperative complications when comparing early and standard ileostomy closure. The current literature indicates that early ileostomy closure is not associated with higher complication rates in patients with an uncomplicated postoperative course and radiologically verified intact distal anastomosis after index surgery.

The safety of early versus late ileostomy reversal after low anterior rectal resection: a retrospective study in 47 patients

Background

This study aimed to clarify the safety of early closure in diverting ileostomy with lower anterior rectal-cancer resection.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed consecutive 47 patients who underwent diverting ileostomy with lower rectal-cancer resection between May 2009 and October 2017. The results of the stoma closure were compared between patients who underwent stoma closure within 90 days (early closure [EC] group) and those who underwent late closure (LC group; closure after 90 days). Because of the small sample size, the frequency of severe complications post closure was analyzed.

Results

Among 47 patients, 29 were in the EC group. Postoperative complications occurred in 48.3% (14/29) and 27.8% (5/18) of patients in the EC and LC groups, respectively. This difference was due to minor complications (Clavien-Dindo Classification I/II), such as superficial incisional surgical site infections (n=5) in the EC group. The rate of severe complications (Clavien-Dindo Classification ≥ III) was similar between the groups (20.7% vs. 16.7%, p=1, Fisher’s exact test).

Conclusions

No association was observed between the time of closure and development of major complications; however, there was an increased likelihood of minor complications after EC. This study provides a basis on which future treatment guidelines for early stoma closure may be developed without affecting patient quality of life.

Early Versus Late Preventive Ileostomy Closure Following Colorectal Surgery: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis With Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Most preventive ileostomy following colorectal surgery requires a closure procedure. The intervals between primary surgery and ileostomy closure remain controversial.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare early versus late closure of preventive ileostomy following colorectal surgery.

DATA SOURCE

A systematic literature search was performed in conference papers, MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and the Clinicaltrials.gov database.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized clinical trials published through October 2019 comparing early versus late closure of ileostomy following colorectal surgery were selected.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Morbidity, leak of the primary anastomosis, reoperation, surgical site infection, small-bowel obstruction/postoperative ileus, total operative time, and postoperative length of hospital stay were measured. Results were synthesized using meta-analysis and were rated as firm or weak evidence by trial sequential analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 6 randomized controlled trials were included. Firm evidence from trial sequential analysis demonstrated that the early closure of ileostomy after colorectal surgery reduced the incidence of small-bowel obstruction/postoperative ileus and required less total operative time, but increased the incidence of surgical site infection, compared with late closure of ileostomy; postoperative length of hospital stay tended to be longer with early versus late closure of ileostomy. Weak evidence showed that there was no difference between early and late closure in morbidity, reoperation, or leak of the primary anastomosis.

LIMITATIONS

The study was limited by some evidence rated as weak from trial sequential analysis, combined analysis of small-bowel obstruction and postoperative ileus, and exclusion of the influence of chemo- or radiotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

In selected patients, early closure of ileostomy after colorectal surgery can be considered, with a lower incidence of postoperative small-bowel obstruction/postoperative ileus and less total operative time, but a relatively high surgical site infection rate. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020160989.

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.

Risk factors for anastomotic leakage and its impact on long-term survival in left-sided colorectal cancer surgery

Background

Anastomotic leakage (AL) significantly impairs short-term outcomes. The impact on the long-term outcomes remains unclear. This study aimed to identify the risk factors for AL and the impact on long-term survival in patients with left-sided colorectal cancer.

Methods

Nine-hundred patients with left-sided colorectal carcinoma who underwent sigmoid or rectal resection were enrolled in the study. Risk factors for AL after sigmoid or rectal resection were identified, and long-term outcomes of patients with and without AL were compared.

Results

AL rates following sigmoid and rectal resection were 5.1% and 10.7%, respectively. Higher ASA score (III–IV; OR = 10.54, p = 0.007) was associated with AL in patients undergoing sigmoid surgery on multivariable analysis. Male sex (OR = 2.40, p = 0.004), CCI score > 5 (OR = 1.72, p = 0.025), and T3/T4 stage tumors (OR = 2.25, p = 0.017) were risk factors for AL after rectal resection on multivariable analysis. AL impaired disease-free and overall survival in patients undergoing sigmoid (p = 0.009 and p = 0.001) and rectal (p = 0.003 and p = 0.014) surgery.

Conclusion

ASA score of III–IV is an independent risk factor for AL after sigmoid surgery, and male sex, higher CCI score, and advanced T stage are risk factors for AL after rectal surgery. AL impairs the long-term survival in patients undergoing left-sided colorectal surgery.

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.

One-stitch versus traditional method of protective loop ileostomy in laparoscopic low anterior rectal resection: A retrospective comparative study

BACKGROUND

Protective loop ileostomy is widely performed during rectal resection surgery. The study aimed to introduce the one-stitch method (OM) of protective loop ileostomy in laparoscopic low anterior resection and compare this new method with the traditional method (TM).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted on 109 patients with pathologically diagnosed adenocarcinoma of the rectum from January 2017 to December 2018 in the study centre, and the intraoperative details and postoperative outcomes of the two groups were measured.

RESULTS

A total of 95 patients were included: 54 underwent protective loop ileostomy with the TM, while 41 underwent surgery utilizing the OM. Univariate analysis demonstrated that the operative times of resection and closure were significantly shorter (resection, 200.0 vs. 227.5 min, P = 0.028; closure, 70.0 vs. 92.5 min, P = 0.018) and the peristomal adhesions during closure were milder (P = 0.007) in the OM group than in the TM group. The postoperative complications were similar in both groups. In multivariate analysis, the OM (OR 0.352, 95% CI = 0.155-0.799, P = 0.013) was a significant factor influencing the operative time of resection. The peristomal adhesion extent was the only independent risk factor for the stoma closure time (mild, OR 0.036, 95% CI = 0.010-0.129, P < 0.001; moderate, OR 0.128, 95% CI = 0.033-0.494, P = 0.003). No significant predictive factor of peristomal adhesion extent was identified in multivariable analysis.

CONCLUSION

The OM of protective loop ileostomy in laparoscopic low anterior resection was time-saving, simple and easy to popularize and did not lead to more postoperative complications than the TM.

Early Versus Routine Stoma Closure in Patients With Colorectal Resection: A Meta-Analysis of 7 Randomized Controlled Trials

Background. A substantial proportion of patients undergoing colorectal surgery receive a temporary stoma, and the timing for stoma closure remains unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of early stoma closure (ESC) compared with routine stoma closure (RSC) after colorectal surgery. Methods. We comprehensively searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials that compared ESC and RSC after colorectal surgery. Results. A total of 7 randomized controlled trials with 814 enrolled patients were identified for this meta-analysis. There were no significant differences between the ESC and RSC groups regarding the complications of stoma closure (26.8% and 16.6%, respectively; odds ratio [OR]: 1.30; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.89-1.90; P = .17). A subgroup analysis was conducted by Clavien-Dindo grade of complication, and no significant difference was observed in any subgroup ( P > .05). However, the ESC group had a significantly higher risk of wound complications than the RSC group (17.6% and 7.8%, respectively; OR: 2.61; 95% CI: 1.43-4.76; P = .002), and the RSC group had more cases of small bowel obstruction than the ESC group (3.1% and 8.4%, respectively; OR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.15-0.87; P = .02). Conclusions. ESC is a safe and effective therapeutic approach in patients who have undergone colorectal surgery; it is associated with a reduced risk of bowel obstruction but a higher risk of wound complications.