Loop Ileostomy Closure as a 23-Hour Stay Procedure With Preoperative Efferent Limb Enteral Stimulation: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Loop ileostomy closure is a common procedure in colorectal surgery. Often seen as a simple operation associated with a low complication rate, it still leads to lengthy hospitalizations. Reducing postoperative complications and ileus rates could lead to a shorter length of stay and even ambulatory surgery.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to assess the safety and feasibility of ileostomy closure performed in a 23-hour hospitalization setting using a standardized enhanced recovery pathway.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial.

SETTINGS

Two high-volume colorectal surgery centers.

PATIENTS

Healthy adults undergoing elective ileostomy closure from July 2019 to January 2022.

INTERVENTION

All patients were enrolled in a standardized enhanced recovery pathway specific to ileostomy closure, including daily irrigation of efferent limb with a nutritional formula for 7 days before surgery. Patients were randomly allocated to either conventional hospitalization (n = 23) or a 23-hour stay (n = 24).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome was total length of stay and secondary outcomes were 30-day rates of readmission, postoperative ileus, surgical site infections, and postoperative morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 47 patients were ultimately randomly allocated. Patients in the 23-hour hospitalization arm had a shorter median length of stay (1 vs 2 days, p = 0.02) and similar rates of readmission (4% vs 13%, p = 0.35), postoperative ileus (none in both arms), surgical site infection (0% vs 4%, p = 0.49), postoperative morbidity (21% vs 22%, p = 1.00), and mortality (none in both arms).

LIMITATIONS

Due to coronavirus disease 2019, access to surgical beds was greatly limited, leading to a shift toward ambulatory surgery for ileostomy closure. The study was terminated early, which affected its statistical power.

CONCLUSION

Loop ileostomy closures as 23-hour stay procedures are feasible and safe. Ileus rate might be reduced by preoperative intestinal stimulation with nutritional formula through the stoma's efferent limb, although specific randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm this association. See Video Abstract .

CIERRE DE ILEOSTOMA EN ASA COMO PROCEDIMIENTO AMBULATORIO DE HORAS CON ESTMULO PREOPERATORIO ENTERAL EFERENTE ESTUDIO ALEATORIO CONTROLADO

ANTECEDENTES:El cierre de la ileostomía en asa es un procedimiento común en la cirugía colorrectal. A menudo vista como una operación simple asociada con bajas tasas de complicaciones, aún conduce a largas hospitalizaciones. La reducción de las complicaciones postoperatorias y las tasas de íleo podría conducir a una estadía hospitalaria más corta o incluso a una cirugía ambulatoria.OBJETIVOS:El presente estudio pretende evaluar la seguridad y la viabilidad del cierre de ileostomía realizadas en un entorno de hospitalización de 23 horas utilizando una vía de recuperación mejorada y estandarizada.DISEÑO:Estudio aleatorio controladoAJUSTES:Dos centros de cirugía colorrectal de gran volúmenPACIENTES:Adultos sanos sometidos a cierre electivo de ileostomía, desde Julio de 2019 hasta Enero de 2022.INTERVENCIÓN:Todos los pacientes fueron inscritos en una vía de recuperación mejorada y estandarizada específica para el cierre de la ileostomía, incluyendo la irrigación diaria de la extremidad eferente del intestino asociada a una fórmula nutricional durante 7 días previos a la cirugía. Los pacientes fueron asignados aleatoriamente en hospitalización convencional (n = 23) o a una estadía de 23 horas (n = 24).PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:El resultado primario fue la duración total de la estadía hospitalaria y los resultados secundarios fueron las tasas de reingreso a los 30 días, el íleo postoperatorio, las infecciones de la herida quirúrgica, la morbilidad y mortalidad postoperatorias.RESULTADOS:Finalmente fueron randomizados un total de 47 pacientes. Aquellos que se encontraban en el grupo de hospitalización de 23 horas tuvieron una estadía media más corta (1 día versus 2 días, p = 0,02) y tasas similares de reingreso (4% vs 13%, p = 0,35), de íleo postoperatorio (ninguno en ambos brazos), de infección del sitio quirúrgico (0 vs 4%, p = 0,49), de morbilidad postoperatoria (21% vs 22%, p > 0,99) y de mortalidad (ninguna en ambos brazos).LIMITACIONES:Debido a la pandemia SARS CoV-2, el acceso a las camas quirúrgicas fue muy limitado, lo que llevó a un cambio hacia la cirugía ambulatoria para el cierre de ileostomías. El estudio finalizó anticipadamente, lo que afectó su poder estadístico.CONCLUSIÓN:Los cierres de ileostomía en asa como procedimientos de estadía de 23 horas son factibles y seguros. La tasa de íleo podría reducirse mediante la estimulación intestinal preoperatoria a través de la rama eferente del estoma asociada a fórmulas nutricionales, por lo que se necesitan estudios randomizados específicos para confirmar esta asociación. (Traducción-Dr. Xavier Delgadillo ).

Short-stay compared to long-stay admissions for loop ileostomy reversals: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Short-stay admissions, with lengths of stay less than 24 h, are used for various surgeries without increasing adverse events. However, it is unclear if short-stay admissions would be safe for loop ileostomy reversals. This review aimed to compare outcomes between short (≤24 hours) and long (>24 hours) admissions for adults undergoing loop ileostomy reversals.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for studies comparing short- to long-stay admissions in adults undergoing loop ileostomy reversals. Meta-analyses were conducted for mortality, reoperation, readmission, and non-reoperative complications. Quality of evidence was assessed with grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluations (GRADE) guidelines.

RESULTS

Four observational studies enrolling 24,628 patients were included. Moderate certainty evidence suggests there is no difference in readmissions between short- and long-stay admissions (relative risk (RR) 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.28, p 0.86). Low certainty evidence demonstrates that short stays may reduce non-reoperative complications (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.62, p < 0.01). Very low certainty evidence demonstrates that there is no difference in reoperations between short and long stays (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.26 to 5.04, p 0.87).

CONCLUSIONS

Moderate certainty evidence demonstrates that there is no difference in readmission rates between short- and long-stay admissions for loop ileostomy reversals. Less robust evidence suggests equivalence in reoperations and a decrease in non-reoperative complications. Future prospective trials are required to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of short-stay admissions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=307381 Prospero (CRD42022307381), January 30, 2022.

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.

The safety and feasibility of early discharge following ileostomy reversal: a National Surgical Quality Improvement Program analysis

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to compare 30-day clinical outcomes following routine ileostomy reversal between patients that underwent early discharge (<24 h) and standard discharge (postoperative day [POD] 2 or 3).

METHODS

A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted between 2005 and 2014 using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data set. All patients undergoing ileostomy reversal who were discharged on POD 0 or 1 (early discharge group [EDG]) versus POD 2 or 3 (standard discharge group [SDG]) were identified. The primary outcome was the 30-day adverse event rate. The secondary outcome was the 30-day readmission rate. A multivariate analysis was performed to determine the adjusted effect of early discharge as well as the predictors of adverse events and readmissions.

RESULTS

The study population consisted of 355 and 5805 patients in the EDG and SDG, respectively. There were 19 (5.4%) 30-day adverse events in the EDG and 341 (5.8%) in the SDG. The EDG had 17 (4.8%) 30-day readmissions and the SDG had 294 (5.1%). The adjusted odds ratio for 30-day adverse events in the EDG was 0.95 (P = 0.83), and for 30-day readmissions, it was 1.01 (P = 0.96). Higher BMI, longer operative time, ASA ≥3, chronic steroid use along with a history of bleeding disorder were significant predictors for adverse events and readmissions.

CONCLUSIONS

Select patients discharged within 24 h of ileostomy reversal did not have a significantly higher rate of adverse events or readmissions compared to patients discharged on POD 2 or 3 following uncomplicated surgery. Predictors of adverse events and readmissions can guide the selection of patients suitable for early discharge.

Using Modified Frailty Index to Predict Safe Discharge Within 48 Hours of Ileostomy Closure

BACKGROUND

Enhanced recovery pathways allow for safe discharge and optimal outcomes within 48 hours after ileostomy closure. Unfortunately, some patients undergoing ileostomy closure have prolonged hospital stays. We have shown previously that the Modified Frailty Index can help predict patients who will fail early discharge after laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to use the Modified Frailty Index to identify patients who were safe for early discharge after ileostomy closure.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective review.

SETTINGS

The study was conducted at a tertiary referral center.

PATIENTS

Patients who underwent ileostomy closure (2006-2015) were stratified into early (≤48 hours) and late discharge groups.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The Modified Frailty Index, morbidity, and readmission rates were measured.

RESULTS

A total of 272 patients undergoing ileostomy closure were evaluated. Overall length of stay was 3.64 days (±3.23 days), with 114 patients (42%) discharged within 48 hours. Sex, age, and ASA scores were similar between early and later discharge groups (p > 0.2). Univariate logistic regression demonstrated that a Modified Frailty Index score of 0 was associated with early discharge (p = 0.03), whereas a Modified Frailty Index score ≤1 and ≤2 were not. There was no significant association between the Modified Frailty Index and complication or readmission rates. Postoperative complications occurred in 39 patients (14.3%), and 1 patient died secondary to an anastomotic leak. Fifteen patients (5.5%) were readmitted within 30 days. Readmission rate within 30 days was 3.2%, with a Modified Frailty Index score of 0, 6.1% for a Modified Frailty Index score of <1, and 5.9% for a Modified Frailty Index score of <2, for which there was not an association based on univariate logistic regression (Modified Frailty Index = 0, p = 0.13; <1, p = 0.55; <2, p = 0.53).

LIMITATIONS

The study was limited by nature of being a retrospective review.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing ileostomy closure with a Modified Frailty Index score of 0 are associated with higher rates of discharge within 48 hours of ileostomy closure surgery than those with a higher Modified Frailty Index, without higher readmission rates. This information can be helpful to better manage patient and resource use expectations for the duration of inpatient recovery.

Ileostomy closure in an enhanced recovery setting

AIM

Hospital stays of 5 days or more are not uncommon following ileostomy closure, yet within an enhanced recovery programme (ERP) it is possible for patients to be discharged on the first postoperative day following anterior resection. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the introduction of an ERP for ileostomy closure reduced hospital stay without affecting morbidity or readmission rates.

METHOD

Consecutive patients undergoing elective ileostomy closure from October 2000 to March 2013 were included in this study. The data were collected prospectively into a database. Enhanced recovery was introduced for all elective ileostomy closures in June 2010. Demographic data, length of stay (LOS), readmission, morbidity and mortality were compared between the two groups using the Mann-Whitney U-test and Fisher's exact test.

RESULTS

One hundred and forty-five patients underwent elective ileostomy closure during the study period (37 ERP and 108 pre-ERP). There were no differences between the two groups with respect to demographics, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, prior radiotherapy or chemotherapy, operative time, body mass index, antibiotic use or closure method. Readmission rates (5% vs 6.5%, P = 1.0), morbidity (8% vs 10%, P = 1.0) and mortality (0% vs 0%) were not significantly different. Median (2 vs 4 days, P < 0.0001) and mean (3.4 vs 5.6 days, P = 0.033) LOS were significantly shorter in the ERP group compared with the pre-ERP group.

CONCLUSION

An ERP for closure of ileostomy significantly reduces LOS without adverse effects for patients.

Identifying causes for high readmission rates after stoma reversal

BACKGROUND

Unplanned readmissions after colorectal surgery impact patient and financial outcomes. Our goal was to identify factors related to readmission in ostomy reversal patients.

METHODS

Review of a prospective department database was performed from 2006 to 2012 to identify patients who underwent an ostomy reversal. Patients were stratified into nonreadmitted and readmitted within 30 days of ostomy reversal. The main outcome measures were predictors of readmission and characteristics of patients readmitted and not readmitted.

RESULTS

A total of 351 ostomy reversals (86 % ileostomy and 14 % colostomy) were analyzed; 44 patients were readmitted (12.5 %). Readmitted and nonreadmitted patients were similar in age, body mass index, gender, comorbidities, indications for the index operation, and time to ostomy reversal. Readmitted patients had longer operative times (p = 0.002) and length of stay (p = 0.001), more intraoperative blood loss (p = 0.003), intraoperative complications (p = 0.005), ICU requirements (p < 0.0001), need for temporary nursing at discharge (p < 0.001), and higher total hospital costs than nonreadmitted patients (p = 0.0162). Longer operative time [odds ratio (OR) 1.006, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.001-1.012], intraoperative complications (OR 7.334, 95 % CI 1.23-43.761), ICU stay (OR 1.291, 95 % CI 1.18-1.893), delayed discharge (OR 1.085, 95 % CI 1.003-1.173), and discharge to skilled nursing facility (OR 6.936, 95 % CI 1.531-31.332) were independent predictors of readmission. Ostomy type had no independent effect on readmission.

CONCLUSIONS

Differences in perioperative and outcomes variables exist between readmitted and nonreadmitted patients after ostomy reversal. Longer operative times, intraoperative complications, intensive care unit care, longer length of stay, and skilled nursing at discharge were independently predictive of readmission. These findings can be used to identify high-risk patients prospectively, potentially improving clinical outcomes and healthcare utilization.

Pilot study evaluating the efficacy of AlloMEM™ for prevention of intraperitoneal adhesions and peritoneal regeneration after loop ileostomy

OBJECTIVE

This study was designed to evaluate the feasibility of AlloMEM™, a novel lyophililzed human peritoneal membrane, at peritoneal reconstitution, and decreasing adhesion formation after temporary loop ileostomy.

METHODS

In a pilot study, ten patients had AlloMEM™ used during elective formation of a temporary diverting loop ileostomy for benign or malignant colorectal disease. A blinded investigator and the operating surgeon analyzed the change in adhesion formation and peritoneal remodelling using ileostomy mobilization time and a 5-point adhesion scale grading intra-abdominally and at the subcutaneous and fascial levels.

RESULTS

The mean body mass index was 31 [standard deviation (SD) 5.6], and 40 % of patients had previous abdominal surgery. Ileostomies were reversed after a mean 14 weeks (SD 6.0). The mean ileostomy mobilization time was 27.2 min (SD 12.0). From baseline to ileostomy reversal, there were significant increases in adhesions at the subcutaneous (p = 0.0002) and fascial levels (p = 0.0024). The increased subcutaneous adhesions were associated with improved peritoneal remodeling. There was no significant increase in adhesions from baseline to ileostomy reversal at the intra-abdominal points (p = 0.9393) or around the ileostomy site (p = 0.6128). The median hospital length of stay was 2.6 days (range, 2-3). A single adverse event related to product packaging led to redesign of the packaging process.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of AlloMEM™ in ileostomy closures suggested improvement in adhesions around the fascia and promotion of peritoneal remodeling. AlloMEM™ was safe, feasible, and easy to use in this pilot study. Comparative research is needed to assess the outcomes with this novel product.

Early feeding in pediatric patients following stoma closure in a resource limited environment

BACKGROUND

Establishment of enteral nutrition is necessary after intestinal surgery. In resource-strained environments, it can be critical. This study examined the effect of early feeding in pediatric patients undergoing stoma closure in a country with mid-level socioeconomic indices.

METHODS

With parenteral consent and ethics board approval, patients were prospectively enrolled in early feeding (Group 1), starting feeds 24h post-operation with a protocol driven increase. They were compared with similar patients managed without a specific protocol over the 12 months prior (Group 2).

RESULTS

There were 31 patients in each group with similar mean age and weight. The mean first sustained feed was achieved at 28.5 ± 4.4 h* in Group 1 vs. 153.8 ± 28.6 h in Group 2. Full feeds were achieved within 62.3 ± 19.2 h* vs. 196.0 ± 40.5 h in Group 1 and 2, respectively. Mean hospital stay was 7.2 days* in Group 1 vs. 9.4 days in Group 2. A reduction in postoperative fever and wound infections was observed in Group 1 (*p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

Early enteral feeding after elective bowel anastomosis is well tolerated in children and results in shorter hospital stay and fewer complications.

[Diagnosis and definition of anastomotic leakage from the surgeon's perspective]

The leak rates of different gastrointestinal anastomoses vary considerably but despite this there are common and general concepts for diagnosis and management. Early diagnosis and timely consistent therapy must guide management to prevent harm to the patients. Diagnosis of anastomotic leaks is coupled to clinical signs of the patients and should be initiated promptly. Dependent on the localization of the leak, computed tomography with administration of oral or rectal contrast dye and endoscopy are of high diagnostic value. Both procedures guarantee the option of drainage or stenting through interventional drains or stent placement. Only the implementation of uniform definitions of anastomotic leaks enables surgeons to compare and to improve surgical treatment. Over recent years consensus definitions of postoperative complications including bile leak, pancreatic fistula and colorectal leak have been formulated. These definitions are based on a 3-fold increase of bilirubin (bile leak) or amylase levels (pancreatic fistula) in abdominal drainage fluid compared to serum levels or on an intestinal wall defect with communication of the intraluminal and extraluminal compartments (colorectal anastomosis). The definitions each describe three severity grades A-C. A change of clinical management is required in grade B whereas grade C usually requires a re-operation. Comparable consensus definitions for anastomotic leaks following esophagogastrostomy or esophagojejunostomy or following small bowel anastomosis have not been established. The authors strongly recommend implementation of the presented consensus definitions into clinical and academic daily practice.