Temporary loop ileostomy

A comparative study of stoma-related complications from diverting loop ileostomy or colostomy after colorectal surgery

PURPOSE

Even though minor, stoma-related complications significantly impact quality of life, they are often excluded from clinical analyses that compare short-term postoperative outcomes of loop ileostomy and loop colostomy. This study compares stoma-related complications between loop ileostomy and loop colostomy after rectal resection, including minor complications, and discusses the characteristics of diverting stoma types.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted in patients who underwent diverting stoma construction after rectal resection. Data on patient background and postoperative short-term outcomes, including stoma-related complications and morbidity after stoma closure, were collected and compared between loop ileostomy and loop colostomy groups. Morbidities of all severity grades were targeted for analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 47 patients (27 loop ileostomy, 20 loop colostomy) underwent diverting stoma construction following rectal resection. Overall stoma-related complications, incidence of skin irritation, high-output stoma, and outlet obstruction were significantly higher in the loop ileostomy group but high-output stoma and outlet obstruction were absent in the loop colostomy group. Regarding morbidity after stoma closure, operation times and surgical site infections were significantly higher in the loop colostomy group while anastomotic leakage after diverting stoma closure occurred (2 cases; 15%) in the loop colostomy group but not the loop ileostomy group.

CONCLUSION

Because stoma-related complications were significantly higher in the loop ileostomy group, and even these minor complications may impair QOL, early loop ileostomy closure is recommended. For loop colostomy, stoma-related morbidities are lower but post-closure leakage is a calculated risk.

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.

Comparative study of three different managements after colorectal anastomosis in ovarian cancer: conservative management, diverting ileostomy, and ghost ileostomy

Objective

Anastomotic leak remains the main concern after colorectal anastomosis in ovarian cancer. Our objective was to compare the use of three different management approaches after colorectal resection and anastomosis in patients with ovarian cancer.

Methods

Between January 2010 and June 2018, a total of 133 patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage II–IV ovarian cancer who underwent colorectal resection and anastomosis were included. According to the approach followed after colorectal anastomosis and during the post-operative period, patients were stratified into three groups: conservative management and observation, diverting ileostomy, or ghost ileostomy technique. Univariate analyses were performed for quantitative variables by applying Student’s t test or Mann-Whitney U test and for qualitative variables by using the χ2 test (or Fisher’s test according to the sample size).

Results

A total of 145 patients underwent colorectal resection during cytoreduction for FIGO stage II–IV ovarian cancer. Twelve patients were excluded because a colostomy was required. Thus, 133 patients were included in the final analysis. Modified posterior pelvic exenteration was performed in 121 (91%) patients and recto-sigmoid resection in 12 (9%) patients with relapse. The approach after anastomosis was wait-and-see in 72 patients (54.1%), diverting ileostomy in 19 patients (14.4%), and ghost ileostomy in 42 patients (31.5%). There were no differences in diagnosis, age, body mass index, ECOG (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group), histology, tumor grade, FIGO stage, or type of surgery between the groups. No differences were found regarding the anastomosis leak related factors or the rate of anastomotic leak between the three groups (5.6% vs 5.3% vs 4.8%; p=0.98). Two patients died because of the anastomotic leak in the wait-and-see group, and none died in the diverting ileostomy or ghost ileostomy group. In the diverting ileostomy group, a higher number of patients had complications compared with the ghost ileostomy group (78.9% vs 7.1%; p<0.01). Four patients (21.1%) developed dehydration due to high output stoma (>1500 mL) causing electrolyte imbalance in the diverting ileostomy group, and one patient (2.4%) in the ghost ileostomy group (p=0.03). The stoma reversal rate was 73.7% for the diverting ileostomy group and 100% for the ghost ileostomy group.

Conclusions

There were no differences found in the rate of anastomotic leak among the three groups of patients. The use of ghost ileostomy avoids the drawbacks of diverting ileostomy and seems to have advantages over routine diverting ileostomy and wait-and-see approaches for ovarian cancer patients undergoing colorectal anastomosis. Rates of stoma reversal are lower after diverting ileostomy when compared with ghost ileostomy.

The Reversal of a Protective Stoma Is Feasible Before the Complete Healing of a Colorectal Anastomotic Leak

A proximal diverting stoma is recommended in “high-risk” conditions after total mesorectal excision. The aim of the study is to assess whether, after checking the anastomosis by using a water-soluble contrast enema (WCE), the closure of the ileostomy is feasible and safe, even in the presence of a persistent radiological leak. From 2003 to 2010, 210 colorectal anastomoses were performed. Ileostomy was carried out in “high-risk” anastomosis. A radiological control was performed 2 weeks later. If a leakage was present, conservative therapy controlled by serial WCEs was prescribed. Ileostomy closure was performed in the absence of leakage or with persistent leakage without clinical signs of pelvic infections. Seventy patients (33.3%) had a protective ileostomy. Fifty-eight of these (82.9%) had an uneventful course, whereas 12 (17.1%) had clinical leakage. All 70 patients were submitted to WCE after 2 weeks. Nine of 58 patients (15.5%) and eight of 12 patients with clinical anastomotic leakage showed a leakage at radiology. All these patients were scheduled another WCE 2 months later. It showed that the anastomosis had been healed in seven patients, whereas the 10 patients with leaks remained with ostomy until the third enema 1 month later. For all these patients, closure of the ileostomy was planned despite persistent radiological and subclinical leakage. A radiological study using WCE before closure of the stoma is essential and stoma closure, in the presence of a persistent leakage, is possible in selected patients.

The loop stoma bridge--a new technique

BACKGROUND

Conventionally, supporting rods made of glass, plastic, or similar material have been used for 1 week to 10 days for loop stomas to prevent retraction. However, this is associated with difficulty in applying the stomal appliance till removal of the rod resulting in leakage of fecal matter.

METHODS

A closed suction drain tube of 16 or 18 F placed in the subcutaneous tissue with the help of a trocar is used as a bridge. The points of entry and exit of the tube are just beyond the circumference of the flange.

RESULTS

Apart from discomfort and pain in 5 patients, no major complications were encountered in the 33 patients studied.

CONCLUSION

The method described is safe, cheap, and easily performed by junior surgical resident with low morbidity. The colostomy flange can be applied immediately without leakage.

Ileostomy rod--is it a bridge too far?

OBJECTIVE

Defunctioning loop ileostomies are used commonly to protect low colorectal anastomoses and thereby reducing the serious complications of leakage. However, they are associated with specific complications such as retraction. Traditionally, a supporting rod is placed as a bridge to support both limbs of the stoma in the hope of reducing the incidence of stomal retraction. There is little evidence in the published literature to support this practice. The aim of this study was to determine whether using an ileostomy rod would reduce the incidence of stomal retraction.

METHOD

A prospective, randomised controlled trial was performed in 60 consecutive patients who required a defunctioning loop ileostomy. Patients were allocated to either a 'bridge' or 'bridge-less' protocol. All the patients were assessed by dedicated stoma nurses for at least 3 months and until their stomas were closed. Their postoperative symptoms, including stoma activity and retraction rate, were recorded.

RESULTS

Between May 2001 and June 2004, 57 patients completed the study (28 bridge; 29 bridge-less). There were no significant differences in the retraction rate between the groups. No clinical anastomotic leakage was recorded and none of the patients required early closure.

CONCLUSIONS

If a loop ileostomy is constructed properly, stomal retraction is uncommon and routine use of a bridge is unnecessary.

The morbidity of defunctioning stomata

BACKGROUND

The choice of a defunctioning stoma in restorative resection of rectal carcinoma is unclear. Traditionally, the loop colostomy has been preferred.

METHODS

All patients with either a defunctioning loop ileostomy or colostomy treated by a single surgeon (MS) were studied. The morbidity of stoma construction and closure, as well as problems experienced in the intervening period, were entered on a database.

RESULTS

No significant difference in the morbidity of closure was noted when loop ileostomy was compared to loop colostomy. Although a trend favouring loop ileostomy was noted when interval morbidity was examined, this difference was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Loop colostomy and ileostomy are both effective in defunctioning the distal colon following a restorative resection for rectal carcinoma. There is some morbidity associated with both but when a stoma is constructed, loop ileostomy is preferable. The loop ileostomy is generally easier to manage and is not associated with a greater rate of complications (in its construction and closure) than the loop colostomy.

Loop ileostomy after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis--is it necessary?

Construction of a loop ileostomy is usually advised in patients having an ileal pouch-anal anastomosis to minimize the complication of chronic pelvic sepsis. Formation and closure of a loop ileostomy was associated with a 41 percent and 30 percent complication rate, respectively, in a prospective series of 34 patients. This morbidity must now be assessed in relation to the benefits of avoiding temporary fecal diversion in restorative proctocolectomy.

Colostomy or ileostomy after colorectal anastomosis?: a randomised trial

Sixty one patients were entered in a randomised trial to compare transverse loop colostomy with loop ileostomy after a colorectal anastomosis thought to be at risk of dehiscence. Radiologically proven breakdown of the colorectal anastomosis occurred in 13% of these selected patients and most frequently in the colostomy group. Ileostomies functioned earlier than colostomies (P less than 0.001) but there was no other significant difference in outcome between the groups. In 52 patients intestinal continuity was restored by excision of the stoma within a month of construction with no difference in morbidity between the two groups. A loop ileostomy, closed as soon as the colorectal anastomosis has healed, is recommended as an alternative to transverse colostomy.