Early versus conventional stoma closure following bowel surgery: A randomized controlled trial

Independent risk factors for diversion colitis: a retrospective case-control study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate independent risk factors for diversion colitis induced by the surgical interruption of fecal flow in the non-functional colon.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study with 163 patients who underwent low anterior resections and created prophylactic ileostomies for rectal cancer between January 2014 and June 2023 at the Department of General Surgery, Air Force Medical University Tangdu Hospital. Colonoscopy results of the non-functional region of the distal colon and clinical variables were collected, including age, sex, body mass index, pathological tumor node metastasis staging, ileostomy method, diversion time, receiving radiotherapy or chemotherapy or not, suffering from preoperative inflammatory bowel disease or postoperative anastomotic leakage or not. Diagnosis of diversion colitis based on the results of the patients' colonoscopy results. Univariate analysis and multivariate analysis of diversion colitis-related risk factors were performed subsequently.

RESULTS

The morbidity of diversion colitis is 53.4% (87/163) in our study. Multivariate analysis showed that risk factors for diversion colitis included single-lumen prophylactic ileostomy (63.2 vs. 30.3%, OR 4.481, 95%CI 1.897-10.584, p<0.001), diversion time ≥90 days (79.3 vs. 40.8%, OR 4.474, 95%CI 1.849-10.826, p<0.001), inflammatory bowel disease (17.2 vs. 3.9%, OR 7.491, 95%CI 1.839-30.507, p=0.005), radiotherapy (58.6 vs. 42.1%, OR 0.515, 95%CI 0.196-1.352, p=0.178).

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest that single-lumen prophylactic ileostomy, diversion time, and inflammatory bowel disease are independent risk factors for diversion colitis.

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.

Timing of restoration of bowel continuity after decompressing stoma, in left-sided obstructive colon cancer: a nationwide retrospective cohort

BACKGROUND

With the increasing use of decompressing stoma as a bridge to surgery for left-sided obstructive colon cancer (LSOCC), the timing of restoration of bowel continuity (ROBC) is a subject of debate. There is a lack of data on immediate ROBC during elective resection as an alternative for a 3-stage procedure. This study analysed if immediate ROBC during tumour resection is safe and of any benefit for patients who underwent decompressing stoma for LSOCC.

METHODS

In a Dutch nationwide collaborative research project, 3153 patients who underwent resection for LSOCC in 75 hospitals (2009-2016) were identified. Extensive data on disease and procedural characteristics, and outcomes was collected by local collaborators. For this analysis, 332 patients who underwent decompressing stoma followed by curative resection were selected. Immediate ROBC during tumour resection was compared to two no immediate ROBC groups, (1) tumour resection with primary anastomosis (PA) with leaving the decompressing stoma in situ, and (2) tumour resection without PA.

RESULTS

Immediate ROBC was performed in 113 patients (34.0%) and no immediate ROBC in 219 patients [168 with PA (50.6%) and 51 patients without PA (15.4%)]. No differences at baseline between the groups were found for age, ASA score, cT, and cM. Major surgical complications (8.8% immediate ROBC vs. 4.8% PA with decompressing stoma and 7.8% no PA; P =0.37) and mortality (2.7% vs. 2.4% and 0%, respectively; P =0.52) were similar. Immediate ROBC resulted in a shorter time with a stoma (mean 41 vs. 240 and 314 days, respectively; P <0.001), and fewer permanent stomas (7% vs. 21% and 80%, respectively; P <0.001) as compared to PA with a decompressing stoma or no PA.

CONCLUSION

After a decompressing stoma for LSOCC, immediate ROBC during elective resection appears safe, reduces the total time with a stoma and the risk of a permanent stoma.

Evaluation of the SafeHeal Colovac+ anastomosis protection device after low anterior resection for rectal cancer: the safe anastomosis feasibility evaluation (SAFE) 2019 trial

BACKGROUND

Protective ileostomy (PI) is the current standard of care to protect the anastomosis after low anterior resection (LAR) for rectal cancer, but is associated with significant morbidity. Colovac is an anastomosis protection device designed to shield the anastomosis from fecal content. A second version (Colovac+) was developed to limit the migration risk during the implantation period. The objective of this clinical trial was to evaluate the preliminary efficacy and safety of the Colovac+.

METHODS

This was a prospective, multicenter, pilot study aiming to enroll 15 patients undergoing LAR with Colovac+ placement. After 10 days, a CT scan was performed to evaluate the anastomosis and the Colovac+ was retrieved endoscopically. During the 10-day implantation and 3-month follow-up period, we collected data regarding predefined efficacy and safety endpoints. The primary endpoint was the rate of major (Clavien-Dindo III-V) postoperative complications related to the Colovac+ or LAR procedure.

RESULTS

A total of 25 patients were included (68% male), of whom 15 were consecutively treated with the Colovac+ and Vacuum Loss Alert System. The Colovac+ was successfully implanted in all 15 patients. No major discomfort was reported during the implantation period. The endoscopic retrieval was performed in 14/15 (93%) patients. The overall major postoperative morbidity rate was 40%, but none of the reported complications were related to the Colovac+. A device migration occurred in 2 (13%) patients, but these were not associated with AL or stoma conversion. Overall, Colovac+ provided effective fecal diversion in all 15 patients and was able to avoid the PI in 11/15 (73%) patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Colovac+ provides a safe and effective protection of the anastomosis after LAR, and avoids the PI in the majority (73%) of patients. The improved design reduces the overall migration rate and limits the clinical impact of a migration.

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.

Closure timing of a temporary ileostomy in patients with rectal cancer undergoing anus-preserving operation: a retrospective cohort study

PURPOSE

To investigate the optimal closure time of a temporary ileostomy in patients with rectal cancer receiving anus-preserving operation.

METHODS

Patients with rectal cancer were enrolled from the Affiliated Hospital of Jiangsu University from May 2010 to June 2019. The eligible patients were grouped according to their actual ileostomy closure time after stoma creation. Outcomes were complications during stoma closure and complications within one year after stoma closure.

RESULTS

This study included 361 qualified subjects, with 108 patients in the 3-5 months group, 133 in the 5-7 months group and 120 in the ≥ 7 months group. Compared with the risk of complications during stoma closure in the 3-5 months group, that in the 5-7 months group was significantly reduced (odds ratio [OR]: 0.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.13-0.99), and that in the ≥ 7 months group was significantly increased (OR: 5.88, 95% CI 2.38-14.56). In contrast to the 3-5 months group, the 5-7 months group showed a significantly decreased risk (OR: 0.21, 95% CI 0.07-0.67), and the ≥ 7 months group showed a significantly increased risk (OR: 4.21, 95% CI 1.61-11.01) of complications within 1 year after stoma closure.

CONCLUSION

5-7 months after the ileostomy is created may be the optimal time for its closure.

Slow and Steady Wins the Race: A Solid Case for a 3-Stage Approach in Ulcerative Colitis

BACKGROUND

Approximately 10% to 20% of patients with ulcerative colitis require surgery during their disease course, of which the most common is the staged restorative proctocolectomy with IPAA.

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to compare the rates of anastomotic leaks among all staged restorative proctocolectomy with IPAA procedures.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective cohort study.

SETTINGS

This study was conducted at a single tertiary care IBD center.

PATIENTS

All patients with ulcerative colitis or IBD-unspecified who underwent a primary total proctocolectomy with IPAA for medically refractory disease or dysplasia between 2008 and 2017 were identified.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was anastomotic leak within a 6-month postoperative period. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression were used to compare patients with and without anastomotic leaks.

RESULTS

The sample was composed of 584 nonemergent patients, of whom 50 (8.6%) underwent 1-stage, 162 (27.7%) underwent 2-stage, 58 (9.9%) underwent modified 2-stage, and 314 (53.7%) underwent a 3-stage total proctocolectomy with IPAA. The primary indication was medically refractory disease in 488 patients and dysplasia/cancer in 101 patients. Anastomotic leak occurred in 10 patients (3.2%) after 3-stage, 14 patients (8.6%) after 2-stage, 6 patients (10.3%) after modified 2-stage, and 10 patients (20.0%) after a 1-stage procedure. A 3-stage procedure had fewer leaks and additional procedures for leaks compared with 1- and modified 2-stage procedures (p < 0.03). The 3-stage procedure had fewer combined anastomotic leaks and pelvic abscesses than all of the other staged procedures (p < 0.05).

LIMITATIONS

This study was limited by its retrospective design and evolving electronic medical charts system.

CONCLUSIONS

The 3-stage total proctocolectomy with IPAA is the optimal staged method in ulcerative colitis to reduce leaks and related complications. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B693.

LENTO Y CONSTANTE GANA LA CARRERA UN CASO SLIDO PARA UN ENFOQUE DE TRES ETAPAS EN LA COLITIS ULCEROSA

ANTECEDENTES:Aproximadamente el 10-20% de los pacientes con colitis ulcerosa requieren cirugía durante el curso de su enfermedad, de los cuales la más común es la proctocolectomía restauradora escalonada con anastomosis con bolsa ileo-anal.OBJETIVO:El objetivo fue comparar las tasas de fugas anastomóticas entre todos los procedimientos de proctocolectomía restauradora por etapas con procedimiento de anastomosis con bolsa ileo-anal.DISEÑO:Este fue un estudio de cohorte retrospectivo.ENTORNO CLÍNICO:Este estudio se llevó a cabo en un único centro de atención terciaria de tercer nivel para enfermedades inflamatorias del intestino.PACIENTES:Se identificaron todos los pacientes con colitis ulcerosa o enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal inespecífica que se sometieron a una proctocolectomía total primaria mas anastomosis con bolsa ileo-anal por enfermedad médicamente refractaria o displasia entre 2008 y 2017.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:El resultado primario fue la fuga anastomótica dentro de un período posoperatorio de seis meses. Se utilizó regresión logística univariante y multivariante para comparar pacientes con y sin fugas anastomóticas.RESULTADOS:La muestra estuvo compuesta por 584 pacientes no emergentes, de los cuales 50 (8,6%) se sometieron a una etapa, 162 (27,7%) se sometieron a dos etapas, 58 (9,9%) se sometieron a modificación en dos etapas y 314 (53,7%) se sometieron a una proctocolectomía total en tres tiempos mas anastomosis con bolsa ileo-anal. La indicación principal fue enfermedad médicamente refractaria en 488 pacientes y displasia / cáncer en 101 pacientes. Se produjo una fuga anastomótica en 10 (3,2%) pacientes después de tres etapas, 14 (8,6%) pacientes después de dos etapas, 6 (10,3%) pacientes después de dos etapas modificadas y 10 (20,0%) pacientes después de una etapa procedimiento. Un procedimiento de tres etapas tuvo menos fugas y procedimientos adicionales para las fugas en comparación con los procedimientos de una y dos etapas modificadas (p <0.03). El procedimiento de tres etapas tuvo menos fugas anastomóticas y abscesos pélvicos combinados que todos los demás procedimientos por etapas (p <0,05).LIMITACIONES:Este estudio estuvo limitado por su diseño retrospectivo y su sistema de registros médicos electrónicos en evolución.CONCLUSIONES:La proctocolectomía total en tres etapas mas anastomosis con bolsa ileo-anal es el método óptimo por etapas en la colitis ulcerosa para reducir las fugas y las complicaciones relacionadas. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B693.

Risk factors for postoperative ileus following loop ileostomy closure

Objectives

The most common intra-abdominal complication following loop ileostomy closure (LIC) is postoperative ileus (POI). The aim of the study was to determine the risk factors of POI development following LIC and make recommendations for its prevention.

Material and Methods

In this study, patients having undergone LIC with peristomal incision following distal colorectal surgery were included. Clavien-Dindo classification was used to evaluate postoperative complications. POI and postoperative leakage were defined based on clinical and radiological criteria. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2017 criteria were used to diagnose surgical site infection (SSI). Postoperative bleeding was diagnosed one day after surgery if there was a >2 g/dL or ≥15% decrease in the hemoglobin level.

Results

Seventy-nine patients were included into the study. In nine of the patients POI developed, six had SSI, five had postoperative bleeding, and two had anastomosis leakage. In the univariate analysis; age <60 years (p= 0.02), presence of comorbidity (p= 0.007), using an open technique in the first surgery (p= 0.02), performing total colectomy in the first surgery (p= 0.048), performing hand-sewn anastomosis of LIC (p= 0.01), and postoperative blood transfusion (p= 0.04) were found to be risk factors for POI. Performing hand-sewn anastomosis of LIC (p= 0.03) and using an open technique in the first surgery (p= 0.03) were found to be independent variables for POI risk.

Conclusion

Using an open technique in the first surgery and performing a hand-sewn anastomosis of LIC may increase POI.

A Systematic Review of Early versus Late Closure of Loop Ileostomy

Introduction

A Loop ileostomy is one of the most common techniques used in colorectal surgery to establish a reversible faecal diversion and bypass the large bowels, in order to protect either a downstream colorectal anastomosis or a coloanal anastomosis. However, it is a procedure that can cause a plethora of complications including long term ones such as the psychological effects. Currently, there is no consensus regarding the optimal time to perform closure of a loop ileostomy. Some studies suggested the early reversal of ileostomy procedure as a solution to reduce these complications. This study aims to review the available literature in order to ascertain the benefits behind early closure of loop ileostomy.

Methods

The literature was searched for all studies that included a comparison between the outcomes of early and late closure of loop ileostomy in terms of morbidity, mortality, or quality of life, where available. Early closure of loop ileostomy is defined as closure less than three months and late as more than three months, in accordance with conventional literature. The resultant articles were filtered using our inclusion and exclusion criteria. Finally, the remaining articles were assessed for quality and their results were compared to one another in order to draw our conclusions. Results and Discussion. The results were slightly inclined toward early closure of loop ileostomy. However, there were limitations of the studies reviewed, including the heterogenicity of studies, selection bias, lack of clear definition of measured outcomes, and small sample size. Taking that into consideration, the results of early closure of loop ileostomies in the selected patients were promising and require further investigation.

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.

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.

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.

Intraluminal flexible sheath for the protection of low anastomosis after anterior resection: results from a First-In-Human trial on 15 patients

BACKGROUND

Defunctioning ostomy is commonly used to protect patients from anastomotic leakage complications after low anterior resection, but is fraught with its own deleterious effects. This first-in-human study examines the safety and preliminary efficacy of Colovac, an anastomosis protection device. The Colovac consists of a flexible bypass sheath, placed in the lumen of colon and anchored above the anastomosis using a vacuum stent.

METHODS

15 patients underwent anterior resection (AR) with anastomosis protection by Colovac at 3 European centers. After 14 days, the anastomosis integrity was examined by CT scan and endoscopy. The device was then endoscopically removed. Data regarding demographics, surgical details, 30 day post-operative complications, and patient satisfaction were collected prospectively.

RESULTS

15 patients (10 male) underwent laparoscopic AR with Colovac placement. Preoperative neoadjuvant therapy was administered to 54% of patients. Device placement was uneventful in all patients with a median duration of 7 min and placement was judged as easy or very easy in 93% of the cases. Patients did not report major discomfort during the 14 days. Endoscopic removal (10 min) was judged as easy or very easy in 87% of the cases. Absence of feces below the Colovac anchoring site was observed in 100% of the cases. 4 anastomotic leakages were observed (including 3 device migrations). Overall 5 patients (33%) required a planned stoma creation. At 3 months, 1 had already been closed.

CONCLUSION

Colovac provides a minimally invasive protection of the anastomosis during the healing process by avoiding the need for a diverting ostomy for two-thirds of patients who will not experience anastomotic complications and allowing safe conversion to the standard of care for patients requiring extended anastomotic protection. A larger study is ongoing to confirm these results.