Is Early Reversal of Defunctioning Ileostomy a Shorter, Easier and Less Expensive Operation?

Early vs. Late Stoma Reversal After Open Low Anterior Resection Post-Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy

Diversion stomas are done to protect the patients from anastomosis-related complications after low anterior resection, particularly after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Problems with these temporary stomas are the significant deterioration in quality of life along with medical and surgical complications. Diversion ileostomy is the most commonly performed diversion procedure. Reversal of stoma is usually done after completion of adjuvant chemotherapy. Studies looking into the safety of early stoma reversal have shown conflicting results. The objective of this work is to study the advantages, disadvantages, and complications associated with early ileostomy reversal when compared to late ileostomy reversal in patients undergoing stoma reversal that was done as part of open low anterior resection for rectal cancer. Total of 92 patients were recruited for the study during the time period March, 2018, to June, 2019; 12 patients did not fulfill the inclusion criteria. A total of 80 patients were analyzed, 39 of whom underwent early reversal and 41 underwent late reversal. All of whom were prospectively followed up to assess the quality of life and complications associated with early and late stoma reversals. Both groups of patients were similar in the baseline characteristics. Perioperative complications were found to be significantly increased in the late reversal group when compared to early reversal group (7 vs. 0 with P 0.043). Quality-of-life assessment showed significant improvement in patients who underwent early stoma reversal with significant improvement in raw score, functional score, and symptoms score (P < 0.001). Adjuvant chemotherapy was also not significantly delayed in the early reversal group. Early stoma reversal should be offered to patients after open low anterior resection post-NACTRT, as it is safer and associated with improvement in quality of life.

Complications associated with loop ileostomy reversal delayed greater than twelve months

Diverting loop ileostomy is performed after colectomy to allow for anastomotic healing, and prevention of pelvic sepsis when an anastomotic leak occurs. There is no consensus on the optimal timing of ileostomy closure, and there is limited data on complications associated with ileostomy closure greater than 12 months after creation. The aim of this study is to investigate outcomes of delayed loop ileostomy closure greater than 12 months after creation. Patients undergoing loop ileostomy closure between 2013 and 2023 at Carilion Medical Center, in Roanoke, VA were reviewed. Cohorts compared were defined as Control Group (closure < 4 months) and Delayed Group (closure > 12 months). Demographics and outcomes were compared. Statistical comparisons were performed using either Wilcoxon rank sum test, Pearson's Chi-squared test or Fisher's exact test. Statistical modeling included binary logistic regression for 30-day readmissions and a generalized linear modeling for days till bowel function returns. Adjusted odds ratios, confidence intervals, and p-values were calculated. There were 135 patients in the Control Group and 19 patients in the Delayed Group. Demographics were similar between the groups except for a higher percentage of patients with diabetes, renal failure and history of cancer in Delayed Group (all p < 0.05). Operative time was longer for Delayed loop ileostomy closure (p < 0.05). Patients in the Delayed Group demonstrated a higher hospital readmission rate within 30 days (p < 0.05). Both groups had similar return of bowel function on post-operative day 2, similar length of stay, and similar rates of postoperative ileus (p = NS). Delayed loop ileostomy closure more than 12 months after creation does not delay return of bowel function but may lead to higher hospital readmission rates within 30 days.

Analysis of the correlation between defunctioning stoma and postoperative low anterior resection syndrome in rectal cancer: a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the effect of stoma-related factors (stoma or no stoma, stoma type, and stoma reversal time) on the occurrence of low anterior resection syndrome (LARS), a highly prevalent condition that can develop after anal sphincter-sparing surgery for rectal cancer and impair quality of life, which includes fecal incontinence, fecal urgency and frequent defecation.

METHODS

Patients who underwent radical rectal cancer surgery from July 2018 to July 2022 in a tertiary hospital were included. Baseline data, tumor condition, operation condition and postoperative recovery were obtained by clinical observation. Follow-up data were collected by telephone follow-up. The chi-square and Fisher exact tests were used to analyse differences, coefficient of contingency was used to determine correlations, and independent risk factors for the occurrence of LARS (Patients with a score of 21 or more points were defined as having LARS using the LARS score) were further determined by binary logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 480 patients met the inclusion criteria, of which 267 used a defunctioning stoma and 213 did not use a defunctioning stoma. There was a positive correlation between defunctioning stoma (P < 0.001, P < 0.001, P < 0.05) and the occurrence of LARS at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively, and there was no significant correlation between the stoma type or stoma reversal time and the occurrence of LARS at 3, 6 and 12 months postoperatively (P > 0.05). In binary logistic regression analysis, high BMI (Exp(B) = 1.072, P = 0.039), tumor closer to dentate line (Exp(B) = 0.910, P = 0.016), and ultra-low anterior resection (Exp(B) = 2.264, P = 0.011) increased the possibility of LARS at 3 months postoperatively; high BMI, proximity of the tumor to the dentate line, and ultra-low anterior resection were not independent risk factors for LARS at 6 months postoperatively (P > 0.05). However, proximity of the tumor to the dentate line (Exp(B) = 0.880, P = 0.035) increased the likelihood of LARS at 12 months postoperatively, while high BMI and ultra-low anterior resection remained non-significant as independent risk factors for LARS at 12 months postoperatively (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Defunctioning stoma was not an independent risk factor for the occurrence of LARS, whereas high BMI, tumor closer to dentate line, and ultra-low anterior resection were independent risk factors for the occurrence of LARS.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Not applicable.

Early versus late closure of protective loop ileostomy: functional significant results in a preliminary analysis

BACKGROUND

Protective loop ileostomy (PLI), commonly performed in rectal cancer surgery, is one of the most reliable methods to reduce the risk of sepsis associated with anastomotic complications. The correct timing of PLI closure is not well defined. Recently, most surgeons proposed to close early the PLI. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of the timing of stoma closure on postoperative outcomes.

METHODS

We analyzed prospectively data of patients who received PLI anterior resection for rectal cancer between January 2020 to June 2022. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to the timing of stoma closure, until four weeks (EC group) and more than four weeks (LC group). Outpatient clinic follow-up, perioperative data, postoperative complications and evidence of anterior resection syndrome with the Low-Anterior Resection Score (LARS) score were recorded.

RESULTS

In the EC group 24 patients were included while 27 patients were considered for LC group. There were no differences between the groups with respect to all parameters, except for recourse to adjuvant therapy, higher for LC group. Perioperative analyzed characteristics were similar among groups. There was no statistically significant difference between the EC group and the LC group for complication rate. LARS score was higher in the LC group for score >20 and >30.

CONCLUSIONS

Timing of PLI closure was not a significant independent predictor of post-closure complications rate. LARS incidence was significantly related to longer time of closure, with probably late recovery of motility function, but this should be confirmed by randomized studies.

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.

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.

Causes and costs of delayed closure of ileostomies in rectal cancer patients in Australasian units

BACKGROUND

Defunctioning loop ileostomies (DLIs) are a frequent adjunct to rectal cancer surgery. Delayed closure of DLIs is common and associated with increased morbidity. The reasons for delayed DLI closure are often unknown. The economic burden of delayed DLI closure is not quantified. The present study aimed to determine the reasons for, and economic burden of, delayed DLI closure.

METHODS

Clinical and economic data were audited from a prospective database of patients in two Australasian colorectal cancer centres. Patients treated at each unit with low/ultra-low anterior resection for rectal cancer with formation of DLI between January 2014 and December 2019 were included. Post-operative complication rate, stoma-related complication rate and costs of hospital admissions and stoma care were recorded and analysed. Multivariate linear regression analysis was used to investigate risk factors for delay to closure.

RESULTS

146 patients underwent low/ultra-low anterior resection with DLI; 135 patients (92.5%) underwent reversal. The median duration to reversal was 7 months (IQR 4.5-9.5). Sixty-six percent of patients underwent reversal >6 months after their index surgery. Neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy were associated with delayed reversal (P < 0.001). Non-English speakers waited longer for DLI closure (P = 0.028). The costs of outpatient stoma care (P < 0.001), post-operative care (P = 0.004), and total cost of treatment (P = 0.014) were significantly higher in the delayed closure group, with a total cost of treatment difference of $3854 NZD per patient.

CONCLUSIONS

Causes of delay include systemic factors and demographic factors that can be addressed directly, addressing such causes may alleviate a significant economic burden.

A novel nomogram to predict low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) after ileostomy reversal for rectal cancer patients

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) in patients undergoing low or ultra-low anterior resection (LAR) is a common problem and significantly impacts the quality of life. Patients with an ileostomy after LAR are more likely to develop LARS. However, there hasn't been a model predicting LARS occurrence in these patients. This study aims to construct a nomogram to predict the probability of LARS occurrence in patients with temporary ileostomy and guide preventive strategies before reversal.

METHODS

168 patients undergoing LAR with ileostomy from one center were enrolled as the training cohort, and 134 patients of the same inclusion criteria from another center were enrolled as the validation cohort. The training cohort was screened for risk factors for major LARS using univariate and multivariate logistic regression. The nomogram was constructed using the filtered variables, the ROC curve was used to describe the model's discrimination, and the calibration was used to describe the accuracy.

RESULTS

The optimal cut-off value for stoma closure time was 128 days. Three risk factors were identified using logistic regression analysis: preoperative radiotherapy (OR = 3.038, [95%CI 1.75-5.015], P = 0.005), stoma closure time (OR = 2.298, [95%CI 1.088-4.858], P = 0.029) and pN stage (OR = 1.739, [95%CI 1.235-3.980], P = 0.001). A nomogram was constructed based on these three variables and showed good performance predicting major LARS after stoma reversal. The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.827 in the training group and 0.821 in the validation group; The calibration curve suggested good precision in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This novel nomogram can accurately predict the probability of major LARS occurrence after ileostomy reversal for rectal cancer patients. This model can help screen ileostomy patients with high risks and guide individualized preventive strategies before stoma reversal.

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.

From Formation to Closure: Aggregate Morbidity and Mortality Associated With Defunctioning Loop Ileostomies

BACKGROUND

Defunctioning loop ileostomies are used commonly, but there are significant morbidities.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to describe the morbidity and mortality associated with the formation and closure of defunctioning loop ileostomies.

DESIGN

This descriptive study is based on electronic health records and claims data.

SETTINGS

This study was conducted at academic and community hospitals in Ontario, Canada.

PATIENTS

Adult patients who had a low anterior resection with concurrent defunctioning loop ileostomy from 2002 to 2014 were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Outcomes of interest included 30-day major complications, acute kidney injury, transfusion, and deep space infection. The rate of ileostomy reversal and the percentage of permanent ostomies were also collected.

RESULTS

The cohort consists of 4658 patients who underwent low anterior resection with concurrent defunctioning loop ileostomy. The 30-day, 90-day, and 1-year mortality rates of these patients were 1.2%, 2.2%, and 5.1%. The rate of reoperation was 5.5%, the rate of hospital readmission was 13.4%, the rate of major complications was 28.5%, the rate of deep organ/space infection requiring percutaneous intervention was 5.2%, and the rate of acute kidney injury requiring hospitalization was 10.4%. Eighty-six percent had their ileostomy reversed, leaving 13.2% with a permanent ostomy. After ileostomy reversal, 30-day and 90-day mortality rates were 0.6% and 0.9%. The rate of major complications was 10.3%, bowel obstruction 7%, ventral hernia 10.5%, deep space infection 1.7%, and repeat operation 2.3%.

LIMITATIONS

This study is based on electronic health records and claims data and, thus, the accuracy of results depends on the accuracy of data administration' which can be variable across institutions.

CONCLUSIONS

Morbidity and mortality of defunctioning loop ileostomies are significant. One in 8 patients will have a permanent ostomy. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B810 .

DESDE LA FORMACIN HASTA EL CIERRE AGREGADA MORBILIDAD Y MORTALIDAD ASOCIADA CON LAS ILEOSTOMAS EN ASA DERIVATIVA

ANTECEDENTES:Las ileostomías en asa derivativa se utilizan con frecuencia, pero existen morbilidades importantes.OBJETIVO:Describir la morbilidad y mortalidad asociadas con la formación y cierre de ileostomías en asa derivativa.DISEÑO:Estudio descriptivo basado en historias clínicas electrónicas y datos de reclamaciones.ENTORNO CLINICO:Hospitales académicos y comunitarios en Ontario, Canadá.PACIENTES:Pacientes adultos sometidos a resección anterior baja con concurrente ileostomía en asa derivativa de 2002 a 2014.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACION:Los resultados de interés incluyeron complicaciones mayores a los 30 días, lesión renal aguda, transfusión e infección del espacio profundo. También se recolectó la tasa de reversión de la ileostomía y el porcentaje de ostomías permanentes.RESULTADOS:La cohorte consistió de 4658 pacientes sometidos a resección anterior baja con concurrente ileostomía en asa derivativa. La mortalidad de estos pacientes, a treinta días, 90 días y un año, fue del 1,2%, 2,2% y 5,1%, respectivamente. La tasa de reintervención fue del 5,5%, el reingreso hospitalario fue del 13,4%, la complicación mayor fue del 28,5%, la infección profunda de órganos / espacios que requirieron intervención percutánea fue del 5,2%, y la lesión renal aguda que requirió hospitalización fue del 10,4%. Ochenta y seis por ciento tuvieron reversión de su ileostomía, dejando al 13.2% con una ostomía permanente. Después de la reversión de la ileostomía, la mortalidad a los 30 días y 90 días fue de 0,6% y 0,9%, respectivamente. La tasa de complicaciones mayores fue del 10,3%, obstrucción intestinal del 7%, hernia ventral del 10,5%, infección del espacio profundo del 1,7% y reintervención del 2,3%.LIMITACIONES:El estudio se basa en registros médicos electrónicos y datos de reclamos y, por lo tanto, la precisión de los resultados depende de la precisión en la administración de datos, que pueden variar entre instituciones.CONCLUSIONES:La morbilidad y la mortalidad de las ileostomías en asa derivativa son significativas. Uno de cada 8 pacientes tendrá una ostomía permanente. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B810 . (Traducción-Dr. Fidel Ruiz Healy ).

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.

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.

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.

Impact of timing of reversal of loop ileostomy on patient outcomes: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Diverting loop ileostomies (DLIs) are ideally reversed 6-12 weeks after the index operation. However, reversal surgery is frequently delayed in a real-world setting, with potential implications on patient's quality of life and postoperative complications. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of timing of the reversal on patient outcomes at a tertiary referral hospital.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent elective reversal of loop ileostomy (RLI) between January 2007 and January 2019 were included. The primary outcomes were incidence of postoperative ileus (POI) and 30-day postoperative complications.

RESULTS

Of 251 eligible patients, 158 (63%) were men, the median age was 64 years (range 23-88 years), and the most common index operation was an ultra-low anterior resection in 106 (42%). The median time to reversal for the entire cohort was 7.4 months (range 1-28). RLI was performed within 6 months after the index surgery in 89 patients (35%, early group), 6-12 months in 120 (48%, middle group) and after more than 12 months in 42 (17%, late group) patients. A significantly lower incidence of postoperative ileus (13.5% vs. 25.8% vs. 38.1%, p = 0.006), and 30-day postoperative complications (29.2% vs 41.7% vs. 57.1%, p = 0.011) were seen in the early group compared to the middle and late groups, respectively. There was no difference in the return to theater, length of hospital stay, and readmission rate between groups.

CONCLUSION

Delayed RLI is associated with increased risk of postoperative complications.

Extended duration of faecal diversion is associated with increased ileus upon loop ileostomy reversal

AIM

The timing of ileostomy reversal has been the subject of controversy, with researchers investigating the safety of early versus late stoma closure. Anecdotally, a longer duration of faecal diversion is associated with a greater incidence of postoperative ileus. We sought to investigate the association between duration of diversion and postoperative ileus.

METHOD

We conducted an institutional retrospective cohort study on 173 patients undergoing ileostomy closure between 2012 and 2018. Our primary outcome was ileus; secondary outcomes included postoperative complications and descriptive factors. We investigated the association between duration of diversion and ileus using several analyses to ensure that time was treated appropriately as a continuous, nonlinear variable.

RESULTS

In all, 20.2% of patients had an ileus. Multivariate analysis did not identify a significant association between any independent predictors and ileus, although there was a trend towards increased risk of ileus with increasing duration of diversion. When treated as a categorical variable, a duration of diversion >328 days independently increased the odds of ileus (OR = 3.25, P = 0.033). Duration of diversion was associated with days to first flatus and to first diet (P = 0.025 and P = 0.004, respectively). When patients received nasogastric intubation, the mean duration of intubation was 3.2 days.

CONCLUSION

Greater duration of diversion was associated with a trend towards increased risk of ileus; this risk tripled when diversion lasted more than 328 days.

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.

C-reactive protein can predict anastomotic leak in colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic leakage (AL) is one of the most significant complications after colorectal surgery, affecting length of stay, patient morbidity, mortality, and long-term oncological outcome. Serum C-reactive protein (CRP) level rises in infective and inflammatory states. Elevated CRP has been shown to be associated with anastomotic leak.

OBJECTIVE

Perform a meta-analysis of current CRP data in AL after colorectal surgery.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL databases STUDY SELECTION: Comparative studies studying serum CRP levels in adult patients with and without AL after colorectal surgery.

INTERVENTION(S)

Elective and emergency open, laparoscopic or robotic colorectal excisions for cancer and benign pathology.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Mean serum CRP measurements between post-operative days (POD) 1 through 7 in patients with and without AL. Perform ROC analysis to determine cut-off CRP values to indicate AL.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies with 6647 patients (482 AL). Pooled mean time to diagnosis of AL was 7.70 days. AL associated with higher CRP on POD1 (mean difference (MD) 15.19, 95% CI 5.88-24.50, p = 0.001), POD2 (MD 51.98, 05% CI 37.36-66.60, p < 0.00001), POD3 (MD 96.92, 95% CI 67.96-125.89, p < 0.00001), POD4 (MD 93.15, 95% CI 69.47-116.84, p < 0.00001), POD5 (MD 112.10, 95% CI 89.74-134.45, p < 0.00001), POD6 (MD 98.38, 95% CI 80.29-116.46, p < 0.00001), and POD7 (MD 106.41, 95% CI 75.48-137.35, p < 0.00001) compared with no AL. ROC analysis identified a cut-off CRP of 148 mg/l on POD3 with sensitivity and specificity of 95%. On POD4 through POD7, cut-off levels were 123 mg/l, 115 mg/l, 105 mg/l, and 96 mg/l, respectively, with sensitivity and specificity of 100%.

LIMITATIONS

Study heterogeneity, some characteristics unreported, no RCT CONCLUSIONS: AL is associated with higher CRP levels on each post-operative day compared to no AL after colorectal surgery. The cut-off CRP values can be used to predict AL to expedite investigation and treatment.

Loop ileostomy in rectal cancer surgery: factors predicting reversal and stoma related morbidity

PURPOSE

Loop ileostomy is performed in rectal cancer surgery to decrease the impact of anastomotic leak but it is associated with a significant complication rate. This study aimed to analyze the morbidity related to diverting ileostomy and to identify factors predictive of complications related to stoma management and reversal, as well as conversion into a permanent ileostomy.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted on 112 patients submitted to oncological rectal resection and defunctioning ileostomy in a Portuguese colorectal unit between March 2012 and March 2019.

RESULTS

Loop ileostomy was responsible for 13% of index surgery morbidity and 15% of patients' readmissions due to high output, stoma stenosis and parastomal hernia. Ileostomy was reversed in 89% cases with 7% Clavien-Dindo ≥ IIIb complications. An association was established between diabetes and higher stoma management morbidity (OR: 3.28 [95% CI: 1.039-10.426]. p = 0.041). Likewise, diabetes (OR: 0.17 [95% CI: 0.038; 6.90], p=0.015), oncological disease stage ≥ III (OR: 0.10 [95% CI: 0.005; 0.656], p=0.047) and index rectal surgery morbidity (OR: 0.23 [95% CI: 0.052; 0.955], p=0.041) were associated with less ileostomy closure. Complications of the index surgery also related to higher stoma reversal morbidity (OR: 5.11 [95% CI: 1.665; 16.346], p=0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

Diabetes and complications of index rectal surgery were identified as predictive of ileostomy morbidity, closure rate and associated complications. It is essential to adjust treatment decisions to patient's morbidity risk and adopt a more selective approach concerning the use of an ileostomy.

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.

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.

The feasibility and safety of early ileostomy reversal: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Recent evidence supports the safety of early reversal of a temporary stoma, within 14 days of construction. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the post-operative morbidity and overall feasibility of early stoma reversal.

METHODS

Medline and Cochrane databases were searched for studies up to June 2019 that investigated the outcomes of early stoma reversal (EC, defined as closure ≤14 days from the index operation) versus late stoma reversal (LC, ≥8 weeks from the index operation). Meta-analysis was performed on the respective rates of post-operative morbidity, anastomotic leak, wound infection, bleeding, sepsis, small bowel obstruction and ileus.

RESULTS

Nine studies were included (667 patients analysed). Meta-analysis showed no significant difference in the post-operative morbidity rate, anastomotic leak rate, rates of small bowel obstruction, bleeding and ileus between EC and LC. However, the wound infection rate was significantly higher after EC than LC; relative difference 0.10 (95% confidence interval 0.00-0.19, P = 0.047). The stoma-related complication rate was significantly higher after LC than EC; relative difference -0.28 (95% confidence interval -0.45 to -0.11, P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The concept of early stoma reversal is appealing, and this meta-analysis confirms the safety of early stoma closure with an associated reduction in stoma-related complications despite higher wound infection rates. However, the results need to be interpreted with caution due to the heterogeneity of the studies included, especially in respect of the definition of complications that were used. Further well-designed prospective studies are required prior to confident adoption of early stoma closure into clinical practice.

Diverting Ileostomy Duration Is the Main Determinant of Ileostomy-Related Complications after Surgical Treatment of Rectum Cancer

Background

This study aimed to investigate factors associated with the development of ileostomy complications in rectal cancer patients, including those who received neoadjuvant treatment.

Methods

This retrospective trial included 133 consecutive patients who underwent surgery for rectal cancer with temporary diverting ileostomy. Patients' demographic characteristics as well as the pre- and postclosure outcomes and complications were analyzed.

Results

In logistic regression analysis, longer duration of ileostomy emerged as a significant independent predictor of any complication during ileostomy. The respective odds ratios for 3–6 months and >6 months vs. <3 months of ileostomy duration were as follows: OR, 4.5 (95% CI, 1.2–16.7), p=0.023; and OR, 15.2 (95% CI, 3.1–75.2), p=0.001. An additional stepwise model also identified hypertension as a significant predictor. In stepwise logistic regression model, adjuvant chemoradiotherapy emerged as significant independent predictor of “any ileostomy-related complication after ileostomy closure”: OR, 4.5 (2.0–10.2), p < 0.001.

Conclusion

Duration of ileostomy appears to be the main determinant of ileostomy-related complications. Patients who had received neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy had longer ileostomy duration, which may be attributed to the concerns of the surgeon or to the complications themselves.

Exploring optimal examination to detect occult anastomotic leakage after rectal resection in patients with diverting stoma

BACKGROUND

When considering "early stoma closure", both standardized inclusion/exclusion criteria and standardized methods to assess anastomosis are necessary to reduce the risk of occult anastomotic leakage (AL). However, in the immediate postoperative period, neither have the incidence and risk factors of occult AL in patients with diverting stoma (DS) been clarified nor have methods to assess anastomosis been standardized. The aim of this study was to elucidate the incidence and risk factors of occult AL in patients who had undergone rectal resection with DS and to evaluate the significance of computed tomography (CT) following water-soluble contrast enema (CE) to detect occult anastomotic leakage.

METHODS

This was a single institutional prospective observational study of patients who had undergone rectal resection with the selective use of DS between May and October 2019. Fifteen patients had undergone CE and CT to assess for AL on postoperative day (POD) 7, and CT was performed just after CE. Univariate analysis was performed to assess the relationship between preoperative variables and the incidence of occult AL on POD 7.

RESULTS

The incidence of occult AL on postoperative day 7 was 6 of 15 (40%). Hand-sewn anastomosis, compared with stapled anastomosis, was a significant risk factor. Five more cases with occult AL that could not be detected with CE could be detected on CT following CE; CE alone had a 33% false-negative radiological result rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Hand-sewn anastomosis appeared to be a risk factor for occult AL, and CE alone had a high false-negative radiological result rate. When considering the introduction of early stoma closure, stapled anastomosis and CT following CE could be an appropriate inclusion criterion and preoperative examination, respectively.

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.

Association of Timing of Colostomy Reversal With Outcomes Following Hartmann Procedure for Diverticulitis

Importance

The Hartmann procedure (end colostomy) remains a common operation for diverticulitis requiring surgery. However, the timing of subsequent colostomy reversal remains widely varied, and the optimal timing remains unknown.

Objective

To investigate the association of the timing of colostomy reversal with operative outcomes.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective analysis of the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Databases for California, Florida and Maryland included patients with colostomy for diverticulitis linked to their colostomy reversal. Patients with readmissions between the index surgery and reversal were excluded, leaving a final cohort of 1660 patients. Data were collected from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2016, and analyzed from December 1, 2017, through May 31, 2018.

Exposures

Patients were divided based on timing of colostomy reversal following the index surgery into early (45-110 days), middle (111-169 days), and late (≥170 days) reversal timing.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Primary outcomes of interest after reversal included mortality, morbidity, and readmissions and were compared among all groups using logistic regression adjusted for comorbidities and age.

Results

In total, 7165 patients with at least 1 year of follow-up were identified, and 2028 (28.3%) underwent reversal within 1 year. Of patients who underwent reversal within 1 year, 1660 had no readmissions before reversal (860 men [51.8%]; median age, 61 years [interquartile range {IQR}, 51-70 years]). The median time to reversal was 129 days (IQR, 99-182 days). On multivariable analysis, patient characteristics associated with early reversal included being 60 years or younger (odds ratio [OR], 1.31; 95% CI, 1.00-1.70; P = .0497), white race (OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.05-1.67; P = .02), and private insurance vs Medicaid (OR, 2.45; 95% CI, 1.67-3.60; P < .001). Mortality, transfusion, ileus, and major complications were not significantly different among the reversal timing groups. However, prolonged length of stay (OR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.19-2.21; P = .002) and 90-day readmissions (OR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.18-2.22; P = .003) were significantly more likely in the late vs early timing groups.

Conclusions and Relevance

Less than one-third of patients undergo colostomy reversal within 1 year after end colostomy for diverticulitis, and reversal timing is associated with socioeconomic disparities. In selected patients with an uncomplicated course, improved outcomes are associated with earlier reversal, and colostomy reversal is safe as early as 45 to 110 days after the initial procedure.

Investigating Risk Factors for Complications after Ileostomy Reversal in Low Anterior Rectal Resection Patients: An Observational Study

Introduction: Defunctioning ileostomy has been widely used in patients undergoing low anterior rectal resection to reduce the rate of postoperative leakage. It is still not clear whether interval between primary procedure and ileostomy reversal has an impact on treatment outcomes. Methods: In our prospective observational study we reviewed 164 consecutive cases of patients who underwent total mesorectal excision with primary anastomosis. Univariate and multivariate regression models were used to search for risk factors for prolonged length of stay and complications after defunctioning ileostomy reversal. Receiver operating characteristic curves were utilized to set cut-off points for prolonged length of stay and perioperative morbidity. Results: In total, 132 patients were included in the statistical analysis. The median interval between primary procedure and defunctioning ileostomy reversal was 134 (range: 17-754) days, while median length of stay was 5 days (4-6 interquartile range (IQR)). Prolonged length of stay cut-off was established at 6 days. Regression models revealed that interval between primary surgery and stoma closure as well as complications after primary procedure are risk factors for complications after defunctioning ileostomy reversal. Prolonged length of stay has been found to be related primarily to interval between primary surgery and stoma closure. Conclusions: In our study interval between primary surgery and stoma closure along with complication occurrence after primary procedure are risk factors for perioperative morbidity and prolonged length of stay (LOS) after ileostomy reversal. The effort should be made to minimize the interval to ileostomy reversal. However, randomized studies are necessary to avoid the bias which appears in this observational study and confirm our findings.

Reconstructive Surgery for Intestinal Failure

BACKGROUND

Intestinal failure (IF) in the adult is the result of a wide spectrum of disease. Acute mesenteric ischemia, postoperative short bowel due to a complicative course, and Crohn's disease are major causes of IF. Reconstructive surgery in the context of IF comprises a spectrum of procedures including stoma takedown, reversal of laparostomies, and closure of enteric fistulas.

METHODS

This article is based on a PubMed-based literature search and personal experience in adult patients with IF.

RESULTS

This review summarizes therapeutic options of reconstructive surgery in adult patients focusing on the main reasons of IF such as mesenteric ischemia, complicative previous surgery, and Crohn's disease. Indications and contraindications are discussed as well as the optimal time point of reconstructive surgery.

CONCLUSION

This overview summarizes surgical aspects in a special cohort of patients with a rare disease entity necessitating an interdisciplinary approach.

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

PURPOSE

No guidelines exist detailing when to implement a temporary ileostomy closure in the setting of adjuvant chemotherapy following sphincter-saving surgery for rectal cancer. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical and oncological outcomes of ileostomy closure during adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with curative resection of rectal cancer.

METHODS

This retrospective study investigated 220 patients with rectal cancer undergoing sphincter-saving surgery with protective loop ileostomy from January 2007 to August 2016. Patients were divided into 2 groups: group 1 (n = 161) who underwent stoma closure during adjuvant chemotherapy and group 2 (n = 59) who underwent stoma closure after adjuvant chemotherapy.

RESULTS

No significant differences were observed in operative time, blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, or postoperative complications in ileostomy closure between the 2 groups. No difference in overall survival (P = 0.959) or disease-free survival (P = 0.114) was observed between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

Ileostomy closure during adjuvant chemotherapy was clinically safe, and interruption of chemotherapy due to ileostomy closure did not change oncologic outcomes.

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

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

A significant proportion of patients undergoing rectal cancer surgery receive a temporary ileostomy because of its benefits in case of anastomotic dehiscence. However, the best timing for closure remains unclear.

METHODS

Early closure (EC; 30 days after creation) and standard closure (SC; 90 days after creation) of ileostomy were compared in a single-center randomized controlled trial conducted at National Cancer Institute (Vilnius, Lithuania). Patients with a temporary ileostomy who underwent rectal cancer surgery and did not have anastomotic leakage or other serious complications were randomized to early or standard ileostomy closure groups. Thirty days postoperative morbidity following ileostomy closure was the primary outcome of the study.

RESULTS

The trial was prematurely terminated due to the safety reason after 86 patients were randomized to EC (43 patients) and SC (43 patients) groups. The overall 30 days postoperative morbidity rate was dramatically higher in the EC group (27.9% vs 7.9%; P = 0.024). Moreover, severe complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥3) were present only after EC of ileostomy in five (11.6%) patients.

CONCULSION

Early closure of ileostomy at 30 days after radical rectal resection is not safe and should not be performed.

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.

Loop-ileostomy reversal-patient-related characteristics influencing time to closure

PURPOSE

To identify factors associated with timing of stoma reversal after rectal cancer surgery in a large Swedish register-based cohort.

METHODS

Three thousand five hundred sixty-four patients with rectal cancer who received a protective stoma during surgery in 2007-2013 were identified in the Swedish colorectal cancer register. Time to stoma reversal was evaluated over a follow-up period of one and a half years. Factors associated with timing of stoma reversal were analysed using Cox regression analysis. Reversal within 9 months (12 months if adjuvant chemotherapy) was considered latest expected time to closure.

RESULTS

Stoma reversal was performed in 2954 (82.9%) patients during follow-up. Patients with post-secondary education had an increased chance for early stoma reversal (HR 1.13; 95% CI 1.02-1.25). Postoperative complications (0.67; 0.62-0.73), adjuvant chemotherapy (0.63; 0.57-0.69), more advanced cancer stage (stage III 0.74; 0.66-0.83 and stage IV 0.38; 0.32-0.46) and higher ASA score (0.80; 0.71-0.90 for ASA 3-4) were associated with longer time to reversal. Two thousand four hundred thirty-seven (68.4%) patients had stoma reversal within latest expected time to closure. Factors associated to decreased chance of timely reversal were more advanced cancer stage (stage III 0.64; 0.50-0.81 and stage IV 0.19; 0.13-0.27), postoperative complications (0.50; 0.42-0.59) and higher ASA score (0.77; 0.61-0.96 for ASA 3-4).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with a high level of education had a higher chance of timely reversal but medical factors had a stronger association to time to reversal. Patients with advanced rectal cancer are at high risk for non-reversal and should be considered for permanent stoma.

Early vs delayed closure of loop defunctioning ileostomy in patients undergoing distal colorectal resections: an integrated systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials

AIMS

The objective of this study was to evaluate the surgical outcomes and feasibility of early loop defunctioning ileostomy closure, within 2 weeks of index surgery, in patients undergoing distal colorectal resection.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature on published randomized controlled trials reporting the feasibility and outcomes on early vs delayed closure of loop defunctioning ileostomy in patients undergoing distal colorectal resection using the principles of meta-analysis on RevMan 5.4 statistical software was undertaken.

RESULTS

Four randomized, controlled trials on 446 patients evaluating the feasibility and outcomes on early vs delayed closure of loop defunctioning ileostomy in patients undergoing low colorectal resection were analysed. There were 176 patients in the early closure group and 270 patients in the delayed closure group. The risk of anastomotic leak [risk ratio 0.37 (CI: 0.10-1.42), P = 0.15], anastomotic stenosis [risk ratio 4.79 (CI: 0.23-98.47), P = 0.31] and postoperative complications [risk ratio 0.75 (CI: 0.48-1.16), P = 0.19] was similar in both groups. In addition, there was no significant difference between the groups with regard to the duration of operation [standardized mean difference -0.49 (CI: -01.09, -0.12), P = 0.12] and length of hospitalization [standardized mean difference -0.04 (CI: -0.25, -0.18), P = 0.75].

CONCLUSIONS

Early closure of loop defunctioning ileostomy in patients undergoing distal colorectal resection is feasible with comparable outcomes to delayed closure.

Defunctioning stoma- a prognosticator for leaks in low rectal restorative cancer resection: A retrospective analysis of stoma database

AIMS

Low anterior resection (LAR) has higher risk of anastomotic leak with its attendant morbidity -mortality. De-functioning loop ileostomy (DLI), claimed to mitigate the consequences of anastomotic leak, has been questioned in recent years. This study aims to evaluate the impact of ileostomy on LAR.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of stoma database. 136 patients with stoma (March 2011-July 2015) were assessed. Data was analysed in respect to LAR anastomotic leak rate, impact on morbidity-mortality, short and long-term stoma complications, rate of ileostomy reversal and reasons for non-reversal.

RESULTS

45 patients had loop ileostomy for LAR. Male (28) to female (17) ratio was 1.65:1 with median age of 69 (IQR: 56-75.5). Only 3 anastomotic leaks (3/45, 6.5%) occurred, all treated conservatively with no mortality. 29 had reversal, average reversal time is 10 months (3-24) and 5 awaiting. Reasons for non-reversal included patients' choice (7), death from cardiac cause (1), chemotherapy (1), unfit for surgery (1) and failed reversal (1). Acute complications included high output & reversible AKI (1), bleeding (3) and minor complications (6) as skin excoriation, separation and appliance issues. Parastomal hernia was repaired during reversal (12/15).

CONCLUSIONS

De-functioning ileostomy for LAR is a safe procedure with low morbidity. Most stomas are reversible. Series highlights a late reversal contrary to the nationally recommended guidelines. Most interestingly, the study demonstrated de-functioning mitigated clinical consequences of anastomotic leak to an extent that reoperation was avoidable, in keeping with recent meta-analysis indicating a significantly low anastomotic leakage rates and reoperation. Larger study is invaluable to substantiate findings.