Outcomes of support rod usage in loop stoma formation

Management of adult intestinal stomas: The 2023 French guidelines

AIM

Digestive stoma are frequently performed. The last French guidelines have been published twenty years ago. Our aim was to update French clinical practice guidelines for the perioperative management of digestive stoma and stoma-related complications.

METHODS

A systematic literature review of French and English articles published between January 2000 and May 2022 was performed. Only digestive stoma for fecal evacuation in adults were considered. Stoma in children, urinary stoma, digestive stoma for enteral nutrition, and rare stoma (Koch, perineal) were not included.

RESULTS

Guidelines include the surgical landmarks to create digestive stoma (ideal location, mucocutaneous anastomosis, utility of support rods, use of prophylactic mesh), the perioperative clinical practice guidelines (patient education, preoperative ostomy site marking, postoperative equipment, prescriptions, and follow-up), the management of early stoma-related complications (difficulties for nursing, high output, stoma necrosis, retraction, abscess and peristomal skin complications), and the management of late stoma-related complications (stoma prolapse, parastomal hernia, stoma stenosis, late stoma retraction). A level of evidence was assigned to each statement.

CONCLUSION

These guidelines will be very useful in clinical practice, and allow to delete some outdated dogma.

Surgical management of ostomy complications: a MISSTO-WSES mapping review

BACKGROUND

The creation of an ileostomy or colostomy is a common surgical event, both in elective and in emergency context. The main aim of stoma creation is to prevent postoperative complications, such as the anastomotic leak. However, stoma-related complications can also occur and their morbidity is not negligible, with a rate from 20 to 70%. Most stomal complications are managed conservatively, but, when this approach is not resolutive, surgical treatment becomes necessary. The aim of this mapping review is to get a comprehensive overview on the incidence, the risk factors, and the management of the main early and late ostomy complications: stoma necrosis, mucocutaneous separation, stoma retraction, stoma prolapse, parastomal hernia, stoma stenosis, and stoma bleeding.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A complete literature research in principal databases (PUBMED, EMBASE, SCOPUS and COCHRANE) was performed by Multidisciplinary Italian Study group for STOmas (MISSTO) for each topic, with no language restriction and limited to the years 2011-2021. An international expert panel, from MISSTO and World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), subsequently reviewed the different issues, endorsed the project, and approved the final manuscript.

CONCLUSION

Stoma-related complications are common and require a step-up management, from conservative stoma care to surgical stoma revision. A study of literature evidence in clinical practice for stoma creation and an improved management of stoma-related complications could significantly increase the quality of life of patients with ostomy. Solid evidence from the literature about the correct management is lacking, and an international consensus is needed to draw up new guidelines on this subject.

The Use of a Stoma Rod/Bridge to Prevent Retraction: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

We evaluated evidence related to the use of a rod (bridge) to prevent stoma retraction during loop ostomy construction.

METHODS

We completed a systematic review of the literature. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and COCHRANE databases up to December 4, 2019. We posed the following question based on a PICO format. Do adult patients undergoing ostomy surgery experience less stomal retraction when compared to patients managed without placement of a stoma rod?

FINDINGS

Our initial search returned 182 articles; after reading studies in full, 5 articles were identified that collectively enrolled 1058 participants. Four studies were randomized controlled trials and one was a prospective cohort study. Meta-analysis could not be performed because of the small number of studies and the heterogeneity of outcomes measurements. The incidence of stoma retraction ranged between 0%-8% in patients managed with a rod and 0.78%-8.2% in patients with no rod. The number of reported adverse events was low. Placement of a stoma rod was associated with more adverse outcomes than in patients managed without a rod. Adverse events included local edema, stoma necrosis, skin necrosis, peristomal moisture-associated skin damage (irritant dermatitis), peristomal abscess, bleeding, and mucocutaneous separation.

CONCLUSIONS

Stoma rod does not seem to reduce the risk of stoma retraction and might result in other adverse events.

IMPLICATIONS

We recommend avoidance of stoma rod/bridge placement during ostomy surgery.

Comparison of the clinical outcomes of skin bridge loop ileostomy and traditional loop ileostomy in patients with low rectal cancer

To compare the clinical results of patients with low rectal cancer who underwent skin bridge loop ileostomy and traditional loop ileostomy, and provide clinical evidence for choosing a better ostomy method. We retrospectively collected data of 118 patients with rectal cancer who underwent low anterior resection and loop ileostomy. To investigate the patients characteristics, postoperative stoma-related complications and the frequency of exchanged ostomy bags. The differences of these indicators between the two groups of patients who underwent skin bridge loop ileostomy and traditional loop ileostomy were compared. The Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score of the skin bridge loop ileostomy group was lower than that of the traditional ileostomy loop group (P < 0.05). The skin bridge group had a lower Discoloration, Erosion, Tissue overgrowth (DET) score and incidence of mucocutaneous separation than the traditional group at the 1st and 2nd weeks after operation (P < 0.05). The average number of weekly exchanged ostomy bags was significantly less in the skin bridge group than in the traditional group within 4 weeks after surgery (P < 0.05). Our experience demonstrates that the skin bridge loop ileostomy may significantly reduce early postoperative stoma-related complications, the frequency of exchanged ostomy bags and patients' medical costs after discharge.

Whether stoma support rods have application value in loop enterostomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

The purpose of the systematic review and meta-analysis is to analyze the application value of the stoma support rods in loop enterostomy.

Methods

The studies on the application of stoma rods in loop enterostomy published from January 2000 to January 2020 were searched in the databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, and Clinical trials. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies that observed the value of stoma rods were included according to inclusion criteria. The RevMan5.3 software was used for statistical analysis.

Results

A total of 1131 patients with loop enterostomy in six studies were included in this study; there were 569 cases in the experimental group and 562 cases in the control group. All six studies analyzed the effect of support rods on the incidence of stoma retraction; the meta-analysis showed that in a total of 32 patients, stoma retraction occurred, with a total incidence of about 2.8% in 1131 patients. The incidence of stoma retraction in the rod group was not significantly lower than that in the non-rod group, and the difference was not statistically significant (OR = 0.65, 95% CI 0.32~1.32, I² = 0%, P = 0.23), and the studies were homogeneous. The incidences of stoma necrosis (OR = 6.41, 95% CI 2.22~18.55, I² = 0%, P = 0.0006), peristomal dermatitis (OR = 2.93, 95% CI 2.01~4.27, I² = 0%, P < 0.00001), and mucocutaneous separation (OR = 2.14, 95% CI 1.03~4.47, I² = 0%, P = 0.04) were significantly increased in the rod group.

Conclusions

It is not recommended to routinely use stoma support rods in the clinical practice.

Current Management of Intestinal Stomas and Their Complications

Inappropriate stoma site, improper management of stoma, and stoma complications lead to diminished quality of life of ostomates. Healthcare professionals involved in stoma creation and/or care should have the fundamental and updated knowledge of the management of stomas and their complications. This review article consists of the following major sections: principles of perioperative patient management, early complications, and late complications. In the “principles of perioperative patient management” section, the current concepts and trends in preoperative education, stoma site marking, postoperative education, and patient educational resources are discussed. In the “early complications” section, we have focused on the etiology and current management of ischemia/necrosis, fluid and electrolyte imbalances, mucocutaneous separation, and retraction. In the “late complications” section, we have focused on the etiology and current management of parastomal hernia, stoma prolapse, parastomal varices, and pyoderma gangrenosum. Pre- and postoperative patient education facilitates the patient's independence in stoma care and resumption of normal activities. Healthcare providers should have basic skills and updated knowledge on the management of stomas and complications of stomas, to act as the first crisis manager for ostomates.

Stoma rods in abdominal surgery: a systematic review and metaanalyses

BACKGROUND

Stoma rods are used traditionally to prevent retraction of loop stomas into the abdominal cavity. However, there is very little evidence to support or refute their use. The aim of the present systematic review and metaanalysis was to assess the current data on stoma rods in loop stomas. The primary outcomes were stoma necrosis and stoma retraction.

METHODS

A systematic review and metaanalyses were conducted using the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and metaanalysis guidelines (PRISMA). The study protocol was registered prospectively on PROSPERO. An electronic search was performed by two reviewers independently using predefined search strategy and Medline. Bibliographies of selected studies were screened for additional references. RevMan was used to generate forest plots and calculate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

In total, five studies were identified that met inclusion criteria, including four randomized controlled trials. Three studies examined only ileostomies, while one included both colostomies and ileostomies, and one only examined colostomies. In total, 561 patients underwent a stoma with a rod compared to 443 without. There was a higher rate of dermatitis (rod 29.86% vs no rod 16% OR 2.65; 95% CI 1.79-3.93) and stoma necrosis (rod 7% vs no rod 1.15% OR 5.58; 95% CI 1.85-16.84) in the rod group, but there was no significant difference in stoma retraction (rod 2.28% vs no rod 3.45%; OR 0.7; 95% CI 0.32-1.54).

CONCLUSIONS

Stoma rods do not reduce the incidence of stoma retraction and instead lead to increased rates of dermatitis and stoma necrosis.

A sustaining rod increases necrosis of loop ileostomies: a randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

Defunctioning loop ileostomies (LI) are commonly used in colorectal surgery to reduce the potentially detrimental consequences of anastomotic leakages. However, stoma-related morbidity is high with up to 75% of patients having local complications. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of a sustaining rod on the local complication rate.

METHODS

In this prospective, multi-center, randomized controlled trial, subjects were allocated to either a rod or a rod-less protocol (NCT00959738). The primary outcome was local morbidity as measured by a stoma specific morbidity score (SSMS) during the first 3 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

Between August 2008 and July 2014, a total of 122 patients were enrolled in the study, of which 78 (63.8%) completed the study [44 (56.4%) rod, 34 (43.6%) rod-less]. There was no significant difference in the SSMS between the two groups. The incidence of necrosis or partial necrosis, however, was significantly increased in the rod group: 13 (29.5%) vs. 1 (2.9%) in the rod-less group (p < 0.01). The retraction rate did not differ significantly between the groups: two (4.5%) in the rod vs. five (14.7%) in the rod-less group (p = 0.13). High body mass index (BMI > 26) was associated with an odds ratio of 5 (p < 0.01) for severe stoma complications.

CONCLUSIONS

A rod-less technique for loop ileostomies reduces the risk of stomal necrosis, with a high BMI being an independent risk factor for stomal complications.

Spontaneous ileostomy closure

[No Abstract Available].