Temporary percutaneous ileostomy versus conventional loop ileostomy in mechanical extraperitoneal colorectal anastomosis: a retrospective study

Efficacy of a transanal drainage tube versus diverting stoma in protecting colorectal anastomosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Anastomotic leakage (AL) is the most fearsome complication in low rectal resection. The temporary diverting stoma (DS) is recommended to prevent AL, but it may cause relevant morbidity and needs a second surgical procedure to be closed. Therefore, the use of a transanal drainage tube (TDT) has been proposed as an alternative. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis concerning the peri-operative outcomes in patients undergoing elective anterior rectal resection (ARR) with TDT alone or DS alone. Six studies were meta-analyzed, including a total of 735 patients. The meta-analysis showed that the incidences of AL, surgery-related complications, infective complications, and 30-day reoperation after ARR with low colorectal or coloanal anastomosis did not differ significantly between patients undergoing positioning of TDT and those undergoing DS. Furthermore, overall complications were significantly rarer in patients undergoing TDT. A meta-analysis of the randomized control trial (RCT) and no-RCT subgroups did not detect any statistically significant differences in any outcomes. These results suggest that it might be reasonable to employ a TDT in place of a DS to protect low colorectal and coloanal anastomosis, with consequent considerable advantages in terms of the short- and long-term post-operative outcomes. However, more well-designed RCTs are needed to definitively assess this issue.

Which site is better for prophylactic ileostomy after laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery? By the specimen extraction site or new site: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

There is controversy about the outcomes of prophylactic ileostomy via the specimen extraction site (SES) after laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery (LRCS). We, therefore, performed a meta-analysis to determine the efficacy and safety of stoma through the SES versus new site (NS).

Methods

All relevant studies from 1997 to 2022 were searched in the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CNKI, VIP databases. This meta-analysis was performed using RevMan software 5.3 for statistical analysis.

Results

7 studies with 1736 patients were included. The present meta-analysis noted that prophylactic ileostomy via SES was associated with a higher risk of overall stoma-related complications, especially parastomal hernia (OR, 2.39, 95% CI 1.43-4.00; p=0.0008). No statistical difference was found in terms of wound infection, ileus, stoma edema, stoma prolapse, stoma necrosis, stoma infection, stoma bleeding, stoma stenosis, skin inflammation around the stoma, stoma retraction and postoperative pain score on postoperative day 1 and 3 between SES group and NS group. However, prophylactic ileostomy via SES was associated with lesser blood loss (MD = -0.38, 95% CI: -0.62 - -0.13; p=0.003), shorter operation time(MD = -0.43, 95% CI: -0.54 - -0.32 min; p<0.00001), shorter post-operative hospital stay (MD = -0.26, 95% CI: -0.43 - -0.08; p=0.004), shorter time to first flatus(MD = -0.23, 95% CI: -0.39 - -0.08; p=0.003) and lower postoperative pain score on postoperative day 2.

Conclusion

Prophylactic ileostomy via SES after LRCS reduces new incision, decreases operative time, promotes postoperative recovery, and improves cosmetic outcomes, but may increase the incidence of parastomal hernias. The vast majority of parastomal hernias can be repaired by closing the ileostomy, therefore SES remain an option for temporary ileostomy after LRCS.

The Colorectal Anastomosis: A Timeless Challenge

Colorectal anastomosis is a sophisticated problem that demands an elaborate discussion and an elegant solution. "Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana, Life of Reason , 1905.

A pilot study on prophylactic tube enterostomy for the prevention of anastomotic leakage in patients with high-risk intestinal anastomosis

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic leakages (ALs) are one of the most serious complications following gastrointestinal anastomosis. Currently, very few operative measures are available for the prevention of ALs. This pilot study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of tube enterostomy (T-E) for the prevention of ALs in patients with high-risk intestinal anastomosis.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, demographic data and postoperative outcomes were compared among patients who received T-E and two historical cohorts: one group that underwent primary anastomosis without T-E (non-T-E group) and another that underwent conventional stoma construction without anastomosis (stoma group). The operative procedures were selected according to a scoring system that quantitatively evaluated risk of Als (Zhongnan score).

RESULTS

From March 2017 to March 2020, a total of 45 consecutive patients were enrolled in the T-E group. Among these patients, 53.3% (24/45) were diagnosed with Crohn's disease (CD), and 66.7% (30/45) of them underwent emergency surgery. After propensity score matching, the demographic data were comparable among the three groups. One case of AL (2.2%) occurred in the T-E group, while four cases of ALs (8.9%, 4/45) were found in the non-T-E group (p = 0.13). Tube feeding was provided to 33.3% (15/45) of the T-E patients. Major tube-related complications included one tube dislocation (2.2%) and 3 (6.7%) minor leakages after tube withdrawal (treated conservatively). One death occurred in the stoma group. In the subgroup analysis of CD patients, lower rates of ALs and abdominal abscesses were observed in the T-E group than in the non-T-E and stoma subgroups, but the differences were not significant.

CONCLUSIONS

T-E seems to be a safe and feasible operative method for the protection of high-risk intestinal anastomosis, can be reversed and can provide enteral feeding with acceptable tube-related complications. Further studies are needed to validate the role of T-E.

Is routine splenic flexure mobilization always necessary in laparotomic or laparoscopic anterior rectal resection? A systematic review and comprehensive meta-analysis

Splenic flexure mobilization (SFM) is one of the most difficult steps in laparoscopic colorectal surgery and its role is harshly debated. Some surgeons considered it routinely necessary to obtain a safe anastomosis and to respect oncologic criteria; for others SFM is frequently unnecessary, not ensuring the aspects mentioned above and increasing the risk of morbidity (splenic, bowel and vessels injury, lengthened procedure). We performed a systematic review and a comprehensive meta-analysis, without any language restriction, about the peri-operative and post-operative outcomes (anastomotic leakage, intra-operative complication, conversion rate, operative time, post-operative bleeding, intra-abdominal collection, prolonged ileus, wound infection, anastomotic stricture, overall complications, hospital stay, re-operation, post-operative mortality, R0 margin resection, local recurrence) in patients undergoing elective anterior rectal resection (ARR) with or without SFM, both in laparotomic (LT) and laparoscopic (LS) approach. Fourteen studies were meta-analyzed with a total amount of 42,221 patients. The comprehensive meta-analysis shows that the mobilization or the preservation (SFP) of the splenic flexure does not statistically influence the incidence of colorectal anastomotic leakage, conversion rate, post-operative bleeding, intra-abdominal collection, prolonged ileus, wound infection, anastomotic stricture, overall complications, hospital stay, re-operation, R0 margin resection, and local recurrence results. The operative time is significantly longer in every group of patients undergoing SFM. The incidence of intra-operative complication is statistically increased in overall patients and also in the LS subgroup of patients undergoing SFM, in which also higher incidence of wound infection and re-operation is shown. The meta-analysis shows that SFM may be considered not necessary to ensure better peri-operative and post-operative outcomes in both LT and LS ARR.

A COMPARATIVE STUDY BETWEEN SANTULLI ILEOSTOMY AND LOOP ILEOSTOMY IN NEONATES WITH MECONIUM ILEUS

Background:

Meconium ileus is a common cause of intestinal obstruction in neonates that different surgical methods have been described for its management such as Santulli and loop ileostomy.

Aim:

To evaluate and compare clinical efficacy of Santulli and loop ileostomy in neonates with meconium ileus.

Methods:

In this retrospective study, 58 patients with meconium ileus were evaluated. After analyses of hospital records, 53 patients with completed hospital records were included. Demographic information, surgery parameters and postoperative complications were extracted from the hospital records or calling parents.

Results:

Skin excoriation (21.4% vs. 84%, p<0.001), ostomy prolapsed (0 vs. 28%, p=0.003), and surgical site infection (7.1% vs. 28%, p=0.044) was significantly lower in Santulli ileostomy group. Furthermore, ileostomy output in first week (70.53±15.11 ml vs. 144.6±19.99 ml, p<0.001) and in 4^th week (2.14±4.98 ml vs. 18.4±17.95 ml, p<0.001) was significantly lower in Santulli ileostomy group as compared to loop ileostomy group. Finally, hospital stay in Santulli ileostomy group was 12±2.34 and in loop ileostomy 14.24±1.47 days (p<0.001).

Conclusion:

Santulli ileostomy is better than loop ileostomy due to significant less frequency of surgical site infection, skin excoriation, prolapse of ostomy, ileostomy volume output and hospitalization time.

A comparative study between Santulli ileostomy and loop ileostomy in neonates with meconium ileus

Background:

Meconium ileus is a common cause of intestinal obstruction in neonates that different surgical methods have been described for its management such as Santulli and loop ileostomy.

Aim:

To evaluate and compare clinical efficacy of Santulli and loop ileostomy in neonates with meconium ileus.

Methods:

In this retrospective study, 58 patients with meconium ileus were evaluated. After analyses of hospital records, 53 patients with completed hospital records were included. Demographic information, surgery parameters and postoperative complications were extracted from the hospital records or calling parents.

Results:

Skin excoriation (21.4% vs. 84%, p<0.001), ostomy prolapsed (0 vs. 28%, p=0.003), and surgical site infection (7.1% vs. 28%, p=0.044) was significantly lower in Santulli ileostomy group. Furthermore, ileostomy output in first week (70.53±15.11 ml vs. 144.6±19.99 ml, p<0.001) and in 4^th week (2.14±4.98 ml vs. 18.4±17.95 ml, p<0.001) was significantly lower in Santulli ileostomy group as compared to loop ileostomy group. Finally, hospital stay in Santulli ileostomy group was 12±2.34 and in loop ileostomy 14.24±1.47 days (p<0.001).

Conclusion:

Santulli ileostomy is better than loop ileostomy due to significant less frequency of surgical site infection, skin excoriation, prolapse of ostomy, ileostomy volume output and hospitalization time.

A new technique of completely diverted tube ileostomy for the protection of colorectal anastomosis: a pilot study

AIM

This study was designed to evaluate a new technique for a completely diverting tube ileostomy achieved through temporary occlusion of the distal ileum using a flexible rubber strip.

METHODS

This prospective interventional study was conducted in one centre. Patients who underwent colorectal resections with a primary anastomosis and who were deemed as requiring a defunctioning stoma were included in the study. After completion of resection and anastomosis, the tube ileostomy was fashioned by inserting a reinforced (spiral) endotracheal tube with an inner diameter of 7.5 mm into the ileum. To provide complete faecal diversion, temporary occlusion of the distal ileum was performed using a flexible rubber strip. The primary outcome of this study was the incidence of complete diversion achieved using this method.

RESULTS

Fifty consecutive patients underwent a diverted tube ileostomy using the technique described above. Defaecation before removal of the strip did not occur in any of the patients inferring that complete diversion was observed in all patients (100%). The tube was removed at postoperative week 3. After tube removal, the resulting enterocutaneous fistulas closed spontaneously in a median of 6 (2-30) days.

CONCLUSION

The diverting tube ileostomy technique using an easily removable rubber strip to defunction the colorectal anastomosis is a safe and effective method that precludes the need to fashion a stoma.

Purse-string closure versus conventional primary closure of wound following stoma reversal: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

Surgical site infection (SSI) is one of the most frequent complications after stoma closure and the optimal skin closure technique is still not clear. The goal of this review was to compare outcomes with purse-string closure technique (PSC) versus conventional closure technique (CCT) for skin closure after stoma reversal.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare SSI rate within 30 days, operative time, hospital stay, incisional hernia and intestinal obstruction rates between PSC and CCT.

RESULTS

The pooled analysis of 5 studies showed a statically significant lower rate of SSI in favor of PSC compared to CCT (OR -0.24; 95% CI -0.32, - 0.15; p < 0.00001). No statistically significant differences were observed in the operative time (OR -0.05; 95% CI -3.95, 3.84; p = 0.98) and in the length of hospital stay (OR -0.20; 95% CI -0.76, 0.36; p = 0.48), between the two techniques. Additionally, two out of the five studies provided data on incisional hernia and intestinal obstruction and the pooled analysis revealed no statistically significant differences between PSC and CCT techniques: incisional hernia (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.27-2.47; p = 0.71) and intestinal obstruction (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.41-2.84; p = 0.88).

CONCLUSIONS

The analysis of 5 RCTs showed that SSI rate is statistically significant lower when PSC is performed, compared to CCT. Whereas, no significant differences were found between the two techniques with regards to operative time, length of hospital stay, incisional hernia and intestinal obstruction rates.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of the temporary percutaneous ileostomy for faecal diversion after colorectal resection in elderly

BACKGROUND

Conventional loop ileostomy (CLI) is a suitable procedure for transitory faecal diversion after colorectal anastomosis, but it causes relevant morbidities (dehydration, discomfort, peristomal infections) and requires a second operation to be closed. We already described an alternative technique of temporary percutaneous ileostomy (TPI), which can be removed without surgery.

AIMS

We analyse the outcomes and the costs of the TPI in protecting low colorectal anastomosis in elderly, compared to the CLI.

METHODS

Data of patients underwent elective anterior rectal resection for rectal cancer with extra-peritoneal colorectal anastomosis protected by ileostomy from January 2011 to December 2015 were reviewed. Sixty-one out of 132 patients were older than 70; 35 underwent faecal diversion by TPI and 26 by CLI.

RESULTS

The two groups resulted homogenous about age, sex, operative time, short-term post-operative complications. None of the patients reported anastomotic leakage. The hospital stay and the cost for the first surgical procedure did not show statistically significant differences between TPI and CLI. When comparing the overall hospital stay and costs the differences are statistically significant: the TPI showed a shorter hospital stay (12.4 vs 19.3 days, -35.7%) and a lower cost of hospitalization (7954.0 vs 14,372.1€, -44.7%), compared to CLI.

DISCUSSION

The limited duration of the faecal diversion and the uselessness of a second surgical procedure to remove the TPI are the most important advantages of TPI, especially in elderly.

CONCLUSION

The TPI not only improved the post-operative outcome of the patients, but also allowed a remarkable saving for the National Health System.

Percutaneous transgastric endoscopic tube ileostomy in a porcine survival model

AIM

To introduce natural orifice transgastric endoscopic surgery (NOTES) tube ileostomy using pelvis-directed submucosal tunneling endoscopic gastrostomy and endoscopic tube ileostomy.

METHODS

Six live pigs (three each in the non-survival and survival groups) were used. A double-channeled therapeutic endoscope was introduced perorally into the stomach. A gastrostomy was made using a 2-cm transversal mucosal incision following the creation of a 5-cm longitudinal pelvis-directed submucosal tunnel. The pneumoperitoneum was established via the endoscope. In the initial three operations of the series, a laparoscope was transumbilically inserted for guiding the tunnel direction, intraperitoneal spatial orientation and distal ileum identification. Endoscopic tube ileostomy was conducted by adopting an introducer method and using a Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Catheter Kit equipped with the Loop Fixture. The distal tip of the 15 Fr catheter was placed toward the proximal limb of the ileum to optimize intestinal content drainage. Finally, the tunnel entrance of the gastrostomy was closed using nylon endoloops with the aid of a twin grasper. The gross and histopathological integrity of gastrostomy closure and the abdominal wall-ileum stoma tract formation were assessed 1 wk after the operation.

RESULTS

Transgastric endoscopic tube ileostomy was successful in all six pigs, without major bleeding. The mean operating time was 71 min (range: 60-110 min). There were no intraoperative complications or hemodynamic instability. The post-mortem, which was conducted 1-wk postoperatively, showed complete healing of the gastrostomy and adequate stoma tract formation of ileostomy.

CONCLUSION

Transgastric endoscopic tube ileostomy is technically feasible and reproducible in an animal model, and this technique is worthy of further improvement.

Temporary Tube Stoma versus Conventional Loop Stoma for the Protection of a Low Anastomosis in Colorectal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of temporary tube stoma and conventional loop stoma for the protection of a low anastomosis in colorectal cancer. A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trails. Primary outcome measures were anastomotic leakage rate, the reoperation rate for anastomotic leakage, and stoma-related complications. Secondary outcome measures were operation time, length of hospital stay, time to stoma closure, and permanent stoma rate. Four studies were carried out and 642 patients (332 with temporary tube stoma and 310 with conventional loop stoma) met the inclusion criteria. The incidences of anastomotic leakage and reoperation rate were statistically similar in tube stoma and loop stoma groups. In comparison with conventional loop stoma, temporary tube stoma was associated with a significantly less stoma-related complications (odds ratio = 0.20; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.08–0.50), and shorter operation and hospital stay time (weighted mean difference = -47.28 minutes, 95% CI: -74.68 to -19.88; and weighted mean difference = -5.22 days, 95% CI: -10.32 to -0.13, respectively). Time to stoma closure was significantly shorter in the temporary tube stoma groups (weighted mean difference = -114.58 days, 95% CI: -148.38 to -80.77). Patients receiving temporary tube stoma had lower rates of stoma-related complications, shorter operation and hospital stay time, and stoma closure time. Tube can be easily removed without second surgery in most cases. Therefore, temporary tube stoma is a feasible and effective alternative to conventional loop stoma for the protection of a low colorectal anastomosis.

Postoperative outcomes following mechanical bowel preparation before proctectomy: a meta-analysis

AIM

Previous meta-analyses of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) before colorectal surgery have grouped colon and rectal resection together. An increased postoperative morbidity has been suggested in the absence of MBP following proctectomy. The current study used meta-analytical techniques to evaluate the comparative outcome of patients who received MBP prior to proctectomy.

METHOD

A comprehensive search was performed for published studies examining the effect of MBP before proctectomy on patient outcome. Random effects methods were used to combine data.

RESULTS

Eleven studies including 1258 patients were identified. There was no significant difference in overall morbidity (OR 1.062, 95% CI 0.584-1.933, P = 0.844), anastomotic leakage (OR 1.144, 95% CI 0.767-1.708, P = 0.509), surgical site infection (OR 0.946, 95% CI 0.549-1.498, P = 0.812) or mortality (OR 1.377, 95% CI 0.549-3.455, P = 0.495) between those who did not and those who did receive MBP prior to proctectomy.

CONCLUSION

The current study did not demonstrate a beneficial effect of MBP prior to proctectomy, but the data were limited. Decision-making as to its use should be made on a case-by-case basis.

A Modified Spontaneously Closed Defunctioning Tube Ileostomy After Anterior Resection of the Rectum for Rectal Cancer with a Low Colorectal Anastomosis

The aim of this study is to introduce a new technique of modified spontaneously closed defunctioning tube ileostomy after anterior resection of the rectum for rectal cancer with a low colorectal anastomosis. Patients with rectal cancer who underwent anterior resection of rectum with a low colorectal anastomosis and chose a modified defunctioning tube ileostomy between March 2012 and August 2013 were retrospectively reviewed. Data on the success of the operation procedures, post-operative hospital stay, and post-operative tube ileostomy-related complications were analyzed. One hundred fifty-two patients (87 males and 65 females; 57.1 ± 17.4 years) undergoing the modified defunctioning tube ileostomy after anterior resection for rectal cancer were included. The post-operative hospital stay was 11.9 ± 3.2 days. The tube was removed on days 22.6 ± 4.1 after operation and the ileostomy wound closed spontaneously within 13.1 ± 1.9 days. Twenty-five patients felt tube-associated pain or discomfort, which was relieved after a period of adaptation and appropriate tube adjustment. Nine patients suffered from tube blockage and were treated successfully with saline irrigation. Two patients had intestinal obstruction, which was resolved with conservative treatment. Three patients developed leakage of the distal anastomosis: two were successfully treated with conservative measures and the other completely recovered after reoperation. The modified spontaneously closed defunctioning tube ileostomy appears efficacious and safe. This technique may be used to protect the distal anastomosis and simultaneously decrease the ileostomy complications, and minimize the morbidity and mortality associated with stoma takedown.

Tube ileostomy for faecal diversion in elective distal colorectal anastomosis: a systematic review and pooled analysis

AIM

Tube ileostomy may be an alternative technique to loop ileostomy for protection of distal anastomosis, but its evidence base has not yet been established. This systematic review aims to evaluate the use of tube ileostomy and compare the outcomes associated with it.

METHOD

A systematic literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane database was conducted. Studies reporting on elective left-sided/colorectal anastomosis were included. Studies which reported on emergent surgery, small bowel anastomosis or tube ileostomy as a bridging procedure were excluded. The intra-operative technique, postoperative management and complications were assessed. Outcome measures included anastomotic leak, reoperation and complications related to the stoma or tube ileostomy.

RESULTS

Seven studies met the inclusion criteria. Three were case series with 101 patients and four were nonrandomized comparative studies with 665 patients. Pooled analyses of three comparative studies, comparing tube ileostomy (n = 278) with loop ileostomy (n = 254), revealed no significant differences in anastomotic leak rates (pooled OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.41-1.75; I(2) = 0%, P = 0.43).

CONCLUSION

There is a re-emergence of interest in the use of tube ileostomy to defunction a distal anastomosis. Pooled analyses of studies comparing tube ileostomy with loop ileostomy do not show statistically significant differences in anastomotic leak rates. Further refinement of this technique and randomized controlled studies are necessary for this technique to be routinely taken up by surgeons.

Percutaneous needle decompression in treatment of malignant small bowel obstruction

AIM: To investigate the efficacy and safety of percutaneous needle decompression in the treatment of malignant small bowel obstruction (MSBO).

METHODS: A prospective analysis of the clinical data of 52 MSBO patients undergoing percutaneous needle decompression was performed.

RESULTS: Percutaneous needle decompression was successful in all 52 patients. Statistically significant differences were observed in symptoms such as vomiting, abdominal distension and abdominal pain before and after treatment (81.6% vs 26.5%, 100% vs 8.2%, and 85.7% vs 46.9%, respectively; all P < 0.05). The overall significantly improved rate was 19.2% (11/52) and the response rate was 94.2% (49/52) using decompression combined with nasal tube placement, local arterial infusion of chemotherapy and nutritional support. During the one-month follow-up period, puncture-related complications were acceptable.

CONCLUSION: Percutaneous needle intestinal decompression is a safe and effective palliative treatment for MSBO.

Left colon acute diverticulitis: an update on diagnosis, treatment and prevention

Diverticulosis of the colon is a common disease with an increasing incidence in Western Countries. It represents a significant burden for National Health Systems in terms of costs. Most people with diverticulosis remain asymptomatic, about one quarter of them will develop an episode of symptomatic diverticular disease and up to 5% an episode of acute diverticulitis (AD). AD shows an increasing prevalence. Recently, progresses have been reached about the etiology, pathogenesis, natural course of diverticular disease and its complications; improvements about the diagnosis and treatment of AD have been achieved. However, the treatment options are not well defined because of a lack of solid evidence: there are few systematic reviews and well conducted trials to guide decision-making in the treatment of AD and in the prevention of its recurrences. This review describes the recent evidence about diagnosis, treatment and prevention of AD.

Defunctioning cannula ileostomy after lower anterior resection of rectal cancer

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Most surgeons suggest the use of fecal diversion in patients undergoing low anterior resections of rectal tumors at high risk for anastomotic leakage. We describe an exploratory study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a new diversion method called a spontaneously closing cannula ileostomy, which was designed to protect rectal anastomoses in patients at high risk for anastomotic leakage. The outcomes of patients treated with cannula ileostomy were compared to those of patients treated with loop ileostomy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Outcomes included the rates of anastomotic leakage, reoperation and other complications, as well as length of hospital stay and cost.

DESIGN AND PATIENTS

From January 2011 to December 2012, 294 patients undergoing low colorectal or coloanal anastomosis were treated with ileum diversion using cannula ileostomy or traditional loop ileostomy. Demographics, clinical features, and operational data were recorded.

RESULTS

The anastomotic leakage rates were 8.1% (12/149) in the cannula ileostomy group and 8.3% (12/145) in the loop ileostomy group (p = 1.0). The reoperation rate was 3% (4/149) in patients treated with a cannula ileostomy and 3.4% (5/145) in those who underwent a loop ileostomy (p = 0.75). The median length of the hospital stay was 8.6 days in the cannula ileostomy group and 17.1 days (p < 0.01) in the loop ileostomy group, including time for the initial and reversal operations. In the cannula ileostomy group, the median time to defecation from the anus was 16.5 days after the operation. During the follow-up period, 13 patients in the loop ileostomy group retained their stoma, as compared to 2 in the cannula ileostomy group (p < 0.01).

LIMITATIONS

This study was a nonrandomized design and lacked contrast enema data to identify anastomotic leaks.

CONCLUSIONS

Cannula ileostomy is a safe and effective diverting technique that protects low colorectal and coloanal anastomoses. Patients receiving a cannula ileostomy had shorter hospital stays and lower rates of permanent stoma than those receiving a loop ileostomy.

Completely diverted tube ileostomy compared with loop ileostomy for protection of low colorectal anastomosis: a pilot study

AIM

The study was designed to evaluate a new completely diverted tube ileostomy (CDTI) with a reversible single-row stapled occlusion of the distal limb to defunction a low colorectal anastomosis, and to compare it with a loop ileostomy (LI).

METHOD

From September 2010 to August 2012, 95 patients with rectal cancer who underwent elective low anterior resections were recruited into the study. They received either a CDTI or a LI. Demographics, clinical features and operative data were recorded.

RESULTS

Fifty-four patients (56%) had a CDTI and 41 (44%) a LI. There were no significant differences in patient demographics and clinical characteristics. Anastomotic dehiscence occurred in three (5.6%) patients in the CDTI group and two (4.9%) in the LI group (not significant) and no patient developed faecal peritonitis. In the CDTI group, the distal ileum spontaneously recanalized from the stapler occlusion with an average anastomosis exclusion time of 27.9 (14-70) days. The CDTI tube was removed on day 33 (20-75) and the subsequent stoma closure time was 12.3 (6-30) days.

CONCLUSION

The CDTI procedure is a safe and effective technique for defunctioning an elective low colorectal anastomosis and avoids a formal stoma.

Temporary percutaneous ileostomy for faecal diversion after intestinal resection for acute abdomen in elderly: how to avoid the conventional loop ileostomy

Conventional loop ileostomy (CLI) is a suitable procedure for transitory faecal diversion after colocolic or colorectal anastomosis, but it causes relevant morbidities (dehydration, discomfort, peristomal infections) and requires a second operation to be closed. We already described an alternative technique of temporary percutaneous ileostomy (TPI), which can be removed without surgery, as faecal diversion in low colorectal anastomosis. Now we report our experience with the TPI in protecting colocolic and colorectal anastomosis in urgency in elderly. From January 2012 to June 2014, 45 patients underwent urgent surgical procedures for acute abdomen with colonic and/or rectal resections and colocolic or colorectal anastomosis with faecal diversion by TPI. Nineteen out of 45 patients were older than 70. Four low colorectal anastomoses, 10 intra-peritoneal colorectal anastomosis and 4 colocolic anastomosis were performed. Neither intra-operative complications nor post-operative deaths were observed. None of the 19 patients treated had evidence of clinical or radiological leakage of the anastomosis. Post-operative complications occurred in 7 patients and nobody required re-intervention. No intestinal obstruction was reported in the early (30 days) post-operative period. The TPI seems to be a valid alternative to standard ileostomy, ensuring an optimal faecal diversion both in elective surgery and in urgency. The TPI also ensures less patient discomfort and it can be easily removed without surgery, unlike the CLI. The limited duration of the faecal diversion and the uselessness of a second surgical procedure to remove the TPI are the most important advantages of this new technique, especially in elderly.

To drain or not to drain extraperitoneal colorectal anastomosis? A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

Anastomotic leakage is the one of the most serious complications in rectal cancer surgery and is associated with high mortality, morbidity and an increased incidence of local recurrence. Although many studies have compared drained and undrained colorectal anastomoses, to date the role of pelvic drainage in extraperitoneal colorectal anastomosis remains undefined.

METHOD

We carried out a systematic review of the literature, performing an unrestricted search in MEDLINE and Embase up to 30 October 2012. Reference lists of retrieved articles and review articles were manually searched for other relevant studies. We performed a meta-analysis of the data currently available on the incidence of extraperitoneal anastomotic leakage, according to the presence or absence of pelvic drainage.

RESULTS

Overall, eight studies - three randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and five non-RCTs, comprising a total of 2277 patients - were included in the meta-analysis. Pelvic drainage was demonstrated to reduce both the leak rate and the rate of reintervention in patients who underwent anterior rectal resection with extraperitoneal colorectal anastomosis (OR = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.36-0.73; and OR = 0.29, 95% CI: 0.18-0.46, respectively) compared with patients without drainage. Overall mortality and infection rates were also evaluated, but a nonsignificant correlation was found with the presence of drainage.

CONCLUSION

The meta-analysis shows that the presence of a pelvic drain reduces the incidence of extraperitoneal colorectal anastomotic leakage and the rate of reintervention after anterior rectal resection.

Systematic review of anastomotic leakage rate according to an international grading system following anterior resection for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

A generally acceptable definition and a severity grading system for anastomotic leakages (ALs) following rectal resection were not available until 2010, when the International Study Group of Rectal Cancer (ISGRC) proposed a definition and a grading system for AL.

METHODS

A search for published data was performed using the MEDLINE database (2000 to December 5, 2012) to perform a systematic review of the studies that described AL, grade AL according to the grading system, pool data, and determine the average rate of AL for each grade after anterior resection (AR) for rectal cancer.

RESULTS

A total of 930 abstracts were retrieved; 40 articles on AR, 25 articles on low AR (LAR), and 5 articles on ultralow AR (ULAR) were included in the review and analysis. The pooled overall AL rate of AR was 8.58% (2,085/24,288); the rate of the asymptomatic leakage (Grade A) was 2.57%, that of AL that required active intervention without relaparotomy (Grade B) was 2.37%, and that of AL that required relaparotomy (Grade C) was 5.40%. The pooled rate of AL that required relaparotomy was higher in AR (5.40%) than in LAR (4.70%) and in ULAR (1.81%), which could be attributed to the higher rate of protective defunctioning stoma in LAR (40.72%) and ULAR (63.44%) compared with that in AR (30.11%).

CONCLUSIONS

The new grading system is simple that the ALs of each grade can be easily extracted from past publications, therefore likely to be accepted and applied in future studies.

Comparison between Tube Ileostomy and Loop Ileostomy as a Diversion Procedure

Aim. Loop ileostomy has high complication rates and causes much patient inconvenience. This study was performed to compare the outcome of tube versus loop ileostomy in management of ileal perforations. Patients and Methods. From July 2008 to July 2011, all patients with ileal perforation on laparotomy where a defunctioning proximal protective loop ileostomy was considered advisable were chosen for study. Patients were randomly assigned to undergo either tube ileostomy or classical loop ileostomy as the diversion procedure. Tube ileostomy was constructed in the fashion of feeding jejunostomy, with postoperative saline irrigation. Results. A total of 60 diversion procedures were performed over the period with 30 for each of tube and loop ileostomy. Typhoid and tuberculosis formed the most common etiology for ileal perforation. The complication rate of tube ileostomy was 33%. Main complications related to tube ileostomy were peritubal leak, tube blockage. In patients with loop, overall complications in 53% majority were peristomal skin irritation and wound infection following ileostomy closure. Two patients developed obstruction following ileostomy closure which needed reoperation. Conclusions. Tube ileostomy is effective and feasible as a diversion procedure and has reduced morbidity. It can be used as an alternative to loop ileostomy.