Loop Ileostomy Closure: Comparison of Cost Effectiveness between Suture and Stapler

Hand-sewn direct repair versus resection and hand-sewn anastomosis techniques for the reversal of diverting loop ileostomy after lower anterior rectal resection surgery: A randomized clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

Several techniques have been proposed for the closure of loop ileostomy. This is the first study comparing bowel function and outcomes of two different hand-sewn surgical techniques used for the closure of diverting protective loop ileostomy.

METHOD

In this prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial, 40 patients with a history of rectal cancer, low anterior resection, and diverting loop ileostomy who were candidates for ileostomy reversal were included and randomly assigned into two groups, hand-sewn direct repair of the ileal defect (group A) and resection and hand-sewn anastomosis of the ileum (group B).

RESULTS

The mean age of patients was 56.42 and 52.10 years in groups A and B, respectively. Regarding early postoperative period, group A developed earlier first gas passage (1.68 vs. 2.25 days, p = 0.041) and stool passage (2.10 vs. 2.80 days, p = 0.032). Group A also revealed shorter operating time (83.68 vs. 89.50 min, p = 0.040) and hospital stay (4.73 vs. 6.80 days, p = 0.001). None of the participants in both groups developed signs of bowel obstruction during the early and late postoperative follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

Direct hand-sewn repair for the closure of diverting loop ileostomy is a safe technique with better postoperative bowel function, oral diet tolerance, and less hospital stay compared to resection and hand-sewn anastomosis of the ileum.

Bowel stimulation before loop ileostomy closure to reduce postoperative ileus: a multicenter, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial

Introduction

The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of preoperative bowel stimulation on the development of postoperative ileus (POI) after loop ileostomy closure.

Methods

This was a multicenter, randomized controlled trial (NCT025596350) including adult (≥ 18 years old) patients who underwent elective loop ileostomy closure at 7 participating hospitals. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) using a centralized computer-generated sequence with block randomization to either preoperative bowel stimulation or no stimulation (control group). Bowel stimulation consisted of 10 outpatient sessions within the 3 weeks prior to ileostomy closure and was performed by trained Enterostomal Therapy nurses. The primary outcome was POI, defined as an intolerance to oral food in the absence of clinical or radiological signs of obstruction, on or after postoperative day 3, that either (a) required nasogastric tube insertion; or (b) was associated with two of the following: nausea/vomiting, abdominal distension, or the absence of flatus.

Results

Between January 2017 and November 2020, 101 patients were randomized, and 5 patients never underwent ileostomy closure; thus, 96 patients (47 stimulated vs. 49 control) were analyzed according to a modified intention-to-treat protocol. Baseline characteristics were well balanced in both groups. The incidence of POI was lower among patients randomized to stimulation (6.4% vs. 24.5%, p = 0.034; unadjusted RR: 0.26, 95% CI 0.078–0.87). Stimulated patients also had earlier median time to first flatus (2.0 days (1.0–2.0) vs. 2.0 days (2.0–3.0), p = 0.025), were more likely to pass flatus on postoperative day 1 (46.8% vs. 22.4%, p = 0.022), and had a shorter median postoperative hospital stay (3.0 days (2.0–3.5) vs. 4.0 days (2.0–6.0), p = 0.003).

Conclusions

Preoperative bowel stimulation via the efferent limb of the ileostomy reduced POI after elective loop ileostomy closure.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00464-022-09510-5.

Loop ileostomy closure: a retrospective comparison of three techniques

BACKGROUND

Loop ileostomy (LI) formation is a common practice for patients undergoing low anterior resection or restorative ileo-anal pouch surgery. Ileostomy closure can be performed using a stapled or hand-sewn technique, with or without resection. If hand-sewn, the closure can be one or two layers. Randomized controlled trials have not demonstrated one technique to be superior, and meta-analyses are limited by the heterogeneity of published studies. Our primary aim is to compare stapled ileostomy closure with single- and two-layer hand-sewn closures.

METHODS

This retrospective, single-centre cohort study included patients undergoing LI closure between January 1999 and April 2016. Patient demographics, anastomotic technique, operative time and patient outcomes were collected.

RESULTS

Our analysis included 244 patients (median age 67 years, 43.4% female). There were no significant differences in mean operative times (71.5, 73.1 and 88.5 min, for stapled, single- and two-layer hand-sewn closures, respectively, adjusted overall P = 0.262), or morbidity (21.5% versus 20.4% versus 17.6%, adjusted overall P = 0.934) between stapled or hand-sewn anastomoses, and no mortality. Once adjusting for age, sex, American College of Anaesthesiology grade, and consultant surgeon, the length of stay was different (overall P = 0.034), being similar between stapled and single-layer closures (4.2 versus 5.5 days, P = 0.105), but significantly different between stapled and two-layer closures (4.2 versus 8.3 days, P = 0.026).

CONCLUSION

Stapled and single-layered hand-sewn closures are similar in length of procedure, length of stay and complication rates. A two-layer, hand-sewn technique is associated with a significant increase in stay compared to a stapled ileostomy closure.

Incidence and predictors of postoperative ileus after loop ileostomy closure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Postoperative ileus (POI) is regarded as the most clinically significant morbidity following loop ileostomy closure; however, its incidence remains poorly understood. Our objective was therefore to determine the pooled incidence of POI after loop ileostomy closure and identify risk factors associated with its development.

METHODS

We systematically searched MEDLINE (via Ovid and PubMed), Embase, the Cochrane Library, Biosis Previews, and Scopus to identify studies reporting the incidence of POI in patients who underwent loop ileostomy closure. Two independent reviewers extracted data and appraised study quality. Cumulative incidence proportions were pooled across studies using a random-effects meta-analytic model.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven studies, including 9528 patients, met our inclusion criteria. The pooled estimate of POI was 8.0% (95% CI 6.9-9.3%; I² = 74%). The estimated incidence varied by POI definition: studies with a robust definition of POI (n = 8) demonstrated the highest estimate of POI (12.4%, 95% CI 9.2-16.5%; I² = 79%) while studies that did not report an explicit POI definition (n = 38) demonstrated the lowest estimate (6.7%, 95% CI 5.3-8.3%; I² = 61%). Small bowel anastomosis technique (hand-sewn) and interval time from ileostomy creation to closure (longer time) were the factors most commonly associated with POI after loop ileostomy closure. However, most comparative studies were not powered to examine risk factors for POI.

CONCLUSIONS

POI is an important complication after loop ileostomy closure, and its incidence is dependent on its definition. More research aimed at studying this complication is required to better understand risk factors for POI after loop ileostomy closure.

Outcome and Cost Analysis of Hand-Sewn and Stapled Anastomoses in the Reversal of Loop Ileostomy

Diverting loop ileostomies are common procedures for protecting high-risk anastomoses. There is little consensus on the most ideal technique both in terms of cost efficiency and outcome. Data for this study were collected from 101 patients who underwent loop ileostomy reversal between 2009 and 2014 at Morristown Medical Center. Of the 101 patients included in the review, 57 received a hand-sewn anastomosis (HS-A) and 44 received a stapled anastomosis (S-A). Average total hospital charges for stapled anastomoses were significantly greater than that for hand-sewn anastomoses, as were total operating room supply costs. When the total cost of the operation itself was considered, S-A cases were still found to be significantly greater than HS-A cases. Hospital room charges, total lab charges, pathology charges, and EKG/ECG charges were all greater for S-A cases than HS-A cases. Overall costs were greater for S-As than hand-sewn anastomoses and because of a lack of difference in procedure length, stapler supply costs were not offset. Complication rates and length of stay were also similar between the techniques. We found S-A cases to be more costly and have a greater cost/hour than HS-A cases.

Reversal of loop ileostomy under an Enhanced Recovery Programme - Is the stapled anastomosis technique still better than the handsewn technique?

INTRODUCTION

Recent literature suggests that stapled anastomotic (SA) technique for the reversal of loop ileostomy (LI) may be beneficial in terms of early recovery and reduced incidence of small bowel obstruction when compared to the handsewn anastomosis (HA). Enhanced Recovery Programme (ERP) after colorectal procedures has demonstrated a reduction in some aspects of surgical morbidity. The aim of this study was to investigate the outcomes of patients undergoing reversal of LI within an ERP programme and compare the HA to the SA in relation to clinical outcomes.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

All adult patients undergoing elective reversal of loop ileostomy between January 2008 and December 2012 without any additional procedures, were included in our study. Adherence to ERP modules and 30 day postoperative complications were assessed via retrospective review of patient case notes.

RESULTS

One hundred and eight patients had an ileostomy reversal; 61 in the SA and 47 in the HA group. There were no demographic differences between the two groups. ERP module compliance was satisfactory (>80%) in 11 of the 14 modules with no difference in individual module compliance between the two groups. The operating times were found to be comparable (p = 0.35). Overall mortality (p = 0.44), anastomotic leak rates (p = 1.00), intra-abdominal collections (p = 0.65), small bowel obstruction (p = 1.00), reoperation rates (p = 0.65), ileus (p = 0.14) and other significant complications (Clavien-Dindo > 2) (p = 0.08) were similar between the two groups. A significantly longer total length of hospital stay (TLOS) was found in the SA group (median 3 Vs 4 days, p = 0.009).

CONCLUSION

Reversal of LI under an ERP appears to potentially neutralise the suggested SA benefits in terms of postoperative complications without any additional negative implications. Other non-operative factors may have a potential effect on outcomes such as the TLOS.

Cost analysis of early versus delayed loop ileostomy closure: a case-matched study

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The optimal timing for the closure of loop ileostomies remains controversial. The aim of the current study was to investigate whether early ileostomy closure (EC) (<2 weeks post-formation) results in significant healthcare savings as against late closure (LC).

METHODS

Patients with available cost data that underwent EC between January 2008 and December 2012 were compared against matched patients undergoing LC during the same period. Direct hospital costs for the two groups were compared.

RESULTS

There were 42 EC patients and 61 LC patients. EC patients had significantly less ileostomy-related complications (p < 0.001) and hospital readmissions (p < 0.001). Operative time (p < 0.001) and operative cost (p = 0.002) were also both significantly less in the EC group. Community nursing costs favoured the LC group (p = 0.047). The EC group had an increased post-closure wound infection rate (p = 0.02). The mean total direct cost per patient was NZD 13,724 (SD NZD 3,736) for EC and NZD 16,728 (SD NZD 8,028) for LC. Representing an average costs saving of NZD 3,004 per patient favouring EC (p = 0.012).

CONCLUSION

Although EC increases the post-closure wound infection rate, EC reduces ileostomy complications, hospital readmissions and operative costs resulting in significant healthcare savings. In order to improve patient outcomes and make EC even more cost effective, efforts should be taken to reduce wound infections.

Hand suture versus stapler for closure of loop ileostomy--a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

The aims of this study are to compare the 30-day rate of bowel obstruction for stapled vs. handsewn closure of loop ileostomy, and to further assess efficacy and safety for each technique by secondary endpoints such as operative time, rates of anastomotic leakage, and other post-operative complications within 30 days.

METHODS

A systematic literature search (MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE and ISI Web of Science) was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing stapled and handsewn closure of loop ileostomy after low anterior resection. Random effects meta-analyses were calculated and presented as risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) with corresponding 95 % confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Forty publications were retrieved and 4 RCTs (649 patients) were included. There was methodological and clinical heterogeneity of included trials, but statistical heterogeneity was low for most endpoints. Stapler use significantly reduced the rate of bowel obstruction compared to hand-sewn closure (RR 0.53 [0.32, 0.88]; P = 0.01). The operation time was significantly lower for stapling compared to hand suture (MD -15.5 min [-18.4, 12.6]; P < 0.001). All other secondary outcomes did not show significant differences.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis shows superiority of stapled closure of loop ileostomy compared to handsewn closure in terms of bowel obstruction rate and mean operation time. Other relevant complications such as anastomotic leakage are equivalent. Even so, both techniques are options with opposing advantages and disadvantages.

Comparing methods of ileostomy closure constructed in colorectal surgery in Turkey

INTRODUCTION

Stoma construction is a life saver method for emergent and elective operations in colorectal surgery. However, they are associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality.

AIM

To compare the operative findings, early postoperative complications, and costs of stapled and hand-sewn closures in loop ileostomies that are constructed in emergent and elective colorectal surgery.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The data of 68 patients requiring loop ileostomies during colorectal surgery were retrospectively evaluated. SPSS (version 20) was used for data analysis.

RESULTS

The study group consisted of 44 men and 24 women with a mean age of 55.5 years. The ileostomy closures were performed with hand-sewn method in 36 patients (group 1) and stapled method in 32 patients (group 2). The mean operation time was 75.4 min in group 1 and 46.7 min in group 2 (p < 0.001). Early postoperative complications were wound infection (8.8%), small bowel obstruction (6.06%), and anastomotic leakage (2.9%). Total costs, flatulence and faeces outlet time, oral feeding starting time, time of hospital stay, and early postoperative complications were lower in the stapled group.

CONCLUSIONS

Morbidity and mortality rates of stoma construction and its closure are still considerable. Lower anastomotic leakage rate, complication rate, and costs and shorter operative times in the stapled group make this method preferable.

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.

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.

Early closure of temporary ileostomy--the EASY trial: protocol for a randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

The objective is to evaluate efficiency based on data on morbidity and mortality, health-related quality of life and healthcare-related costs after early reversal of temporary ileostomy after rectal resection for cancer compared with the standard procedure (late reversal).

BACKGROUND

Reversal of a temporary ileostomy is generally associated with a low morbidity and mortality. However, ostomy reversal may cause complications requiring reoperation with subsequent major complications, in ranges from 0% to 7-9% and minor complications varying from 4-5% to 30%. Based on studies exploring and describing the time of closure in previous studies which are mostly of low quality, a recent review concluded that closing a temporary stoma within 2 weeks did not seem to be associated with an increase in morbidity and mortality.

DESIGN AND METHODS

Early closure of temporary ileostomy (EASY), a randomised controlled trial, is a prospective randomised controlled multicentre study which is performed within the framework of the Scandinavian Surgical Outcomes Research Group (http://www.ssorg.net/) and plans to include 200 patients from Danish and Swedish hospitals. The primary end-point of the study is the frequency of complications 0-12 months after surgery (the stoma creation operation). The secondary end-points of the study are (1) comparison of the total costs of the two groups at 6 and 12 months after surgery (stoma creation); (2) comparison of health-related quality of life in the two groups evaluated with the 36-item short-form and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-CR29/CR30 at 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery (stoma creation); and (3) comparison of disease-specific quality of life in the two groups at 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery (stoma creation).

DISCUSSION

The aim of the EASY trial is to evaluate the efficiency of early reversal of temporary ileostomy after surgery for rectal cancer versus late reversal. The EASY trial is expected to have a huge impact on patient safety as well as an improvement in patient-reported outcome. Clinical trials identifier NCT01287637.

Revisiting stapled and handsewn loop ileostomy closures: a large retrospective series

OBJECTIVE

To compare the surgical outcomes of stapled and handsewn closures in loop ileostomies.

METHODS

The data of 225 patients requiring loop ileostomies from 2002 to 2007 were retrospectively evaluated. The patients underwent partial small-bowel resections and either handsewn or stapled anastomoses for the ileostomy closures. They were followed up postoperatively with routine surgical examinations.

RESULTS

The study group consisted of 124 men and 101 women with a mean age of 49.12 years. The ileostomy closure was performed with handsewn in 129 patients and with stapled in 96 patients. The mean time to the first postoperative flatus was 2.426 days in the handsewn group and 2.052 days in the stapled group (p <0.05). The mean time to the first postoperative defecation was 3.202 days in the handsewn group and 2.667 days in the stapled group (p <0.05). The mean duration of patient hospital stay was 8.581 days for the handsewn group and 6.063 days for the stapled group (p <0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who underwent ileostomy closure with stapled recovered faster in the postoperative period and required shorter hospital stays than those whose closures were performed with handsewn. In our opinion, stapled should be considered the gold standard for loop ileostomy closures.