Clinical management of high-output stoma: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

High output is a common complication after stoma formation. Although the management of high output is described in the literature, there is a lack of consensus on definitions and treatment. Our aim was to review and summarise the current best evidence.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, BNI, CINAHL, EMBASE, EMCARE, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from 1 Jan 2000 to 31 Dec 2021 for relevant articles on adult patients with a high-output stoma. Patients with enteroatmospheric fistulas and case series/reports were excluded. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB2 and MINORS. The review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021226621).

RESULTS

The search strategy identified 1095 articles, of which 32 studies with 768 patients met the inclusion criteria. These studies comprised 15 randomised controlled trials, 13 non-randomised prospective trials, and 4 retrospective cohort studies. Eighteen different interventions were assessed. In the meta-analysis, there was no difference in stoma output between controls and somatostatin analogues (g - 1.72, 95% CI - 4.09 to 0.65, p = 0.11, I2 = 88%, t2 = 3.09), loperamide (g - 0.34, 95% CI - 0.69 to 0.01, p = 0.05, I2 = 0%, t2 = 0) and omeprazole (g - 0.31, 95% CI  - 2.46 to 1.84, p = 0.32, I2 = 0%, t2 = 0). Thirteen randomised trials showed high concern of bias, one some concern, and one low concern. The non-randomised/retrospective trials had a median MINORS score of 12 out of 24 (range 7-17).

CONCLUSION

There is limited high-quality evidence favouring any specific widely used drug over the others in the management of high-output stoma. Evidence, however, is weak due to inconsistent definitions, risk of bias and poor methodology in the existing studies. We recommend the development of validated core descriptor and outcomes sets, as well as patient-reported outcome measures.

Interobserver agreement of radiologists assessing the response of rectal cancers to preoperative chemoradiation using the MRI tumour regression grading (mrTRG)

AIM

To investigate whether the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) tumour regression grading (mrTRG) scale can be taught effectively resulting in a clinically reasonable interobserver agreement (>0.4; moderate to near perfect agreement).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study examines the interobserver agreement of mrTRG, between 35 radiologists and a central reviewer. Two workshops were organised for radiologists to assess regression of rectal cancers on MRI staging scans. A range of mrTRGs on 12 patient scans were used for assessment.

RESULTS

Kappa agreement ranged from 0.14-0.82 with a median value of 0.57 (95% CI: 0.37-0.77) indicating good overall agreement. Eight (26%) radiologists had very good/near perfect agreement (κ>0.8). Six (19%) radiologists had good agreement (0.8≥κ>0.6) and a further 12 (39%) had moderate agreement (0.6≥κ>0.4). Five (16%) radiologists had a fair agreement (0.4≥κ>0.2) and two had poor agreement (0.2>κ). There was a tendency towards good agreement (skewness: 0.92). In 65.9% and 90% of cases the radiologists were able to correctly highlight good and poor responders, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The assessment of the response of rectal cancers to chemoradiation therapy may be performed effectively using mrTRG. Radiologists can be taught the mrTRG scale. Even with minimal training, good agreement with the central reviewer along with effective differentiation between good and intermediate/poor responders can be achieved. Focus should be on facilitating the identification of good responders. It is predicted that with more intensive interactive case-based learning a κ>0.8 is likely to be achieved. Testing and retesting is recommended.

A systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the role of laparoscopic surgical resection of transverse colon tumours

OBJECTIVES

A meta-analysis of published literature comparing outcomes after laparoscopic resection (LR) with open resection (OR) for transverse colon tumours.

METHODS

Medline, PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE and Cochrane were searched from inception to October 2013. The text words "minimally invasive", "keyhole surgery" and "transverse colon" were used in combination with the medical subject headings "laparoscopy" and "colon cancer". Outcome variables were chosen based upon whether the included articles reported results. A meta-analysis was performed to obtain a summative outcome.

RESULTS

Six comparatives involving 444 patients were analysed. Of them 245 patients were in the LR group and 199 in the OR group. There was a significant increase in operative time in the LR group compared with the OR group [random effects model: SMD = -0.65, 95% CI (-1.01, -0.30), z = -3.60, p < 0.001] but there was significant heterogeneity amongst trials (Q = 15.51, df = 5, p = 0.008, I(2) = 68). There was less blood loss in the LR group [fixed effects model: SMD = 0.70, 95% CI (0.47, 0.93), z = 6.01, p < 0.001] and patients returned to oral diet earlier [random effects model: SMD = 0.78, 95% CI (0.40, 1.16), z = 4.01, p < 0.001] and had a reduced time to functioning bowel [fixed effects model: SMD = 0.86, 95% CI (0.60, 1.11), z = 6.63, p < 0.001]. No difference was seen for overall morbidity (p = 0.76) or mortality (p = 0.58).

CONCLUSIONS

LR of transverse colon tumours is a safe and effective technique. Although there is an increase in operating time, operative and clinical outcomes of intraoperative blood loss and faster recovery are seen with laparoscopic procedures.

Open vs laparoscopic approach for reversal of Hartmann's procedure: a systematic review

AIM

A meta-analysis of published literature comparing open vs laparoscopic Hartmann's reversal.

METHOD

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PubMed and the Cochrane databases were searched from January 1993 to August 2008. The bibliography of selected trials was scrutinized and relevant references obtained. A systematic review was performed to obtain a summative outcome.

RESULTS

Eight comparative studies involving 450 patients were analysed. One hundred and ninety-three patients were in the laparoscopic and 257 in the open group. Laparoscopic reversal has a significantly reduced complication rate (z = -2.92, P < 0.01), intra-operative blood loss (z = -7.34, P < 0.001) and hospital stay (z = -3.16, P < 0.01) compared with the conventional approach. No difference in leak rates was found.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic reversal of Hartmann's procedure is safe, has fewer complications and shorter hospital stays. This approach may be considered for reversal, however, randomized controlled trials are required to strengthen the evidence.

Open vs laparoscopic repair of full-thickness rectal prolapse: a re-meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

A re-meta-analysis of available data within the published literature comparing laparoscopic rectopexy (LR) with open repair (OR).

METHOD

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PubMed and the Cochrane databases from January 1990 to October 2008. We searched the following MESH terms: 'laparoscopy', 'prolapse' and 'rectal prolapse'. We used the following text words: 'rectopexy', 'haemorrhoids', 'minimally invasive' and 'keyhole surgery'. The bibliography of selected trials and a Cochrane review was scrutinized and relevant references obtained. Selected trials were analysed to conduct a meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Twelve comparative studies on 688 patients qualified for the review. There were 330 patients in LR group and 358 in the OR group. LR takes longer to perform compared with OR. This difference was statistically significant [random effects model: standardized mean difference (SMD) 1.63, 95% CI (1.14-2.12), z = 6.56, P < 0.001]. There was a significant reduction in hospital stay between LR vs OR [random effects model: SMD -1.75, 95% CI (-2.45 to -1.05), z = -4.90, P < 0.001]. There was no statistical difference relating to morbidity, constipation, incontinence or mortality between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic rectopexy is a safe and effective modality and is comparable to OR, however, there is still a paucity of randomized controlled trials within the literature regarding this subject. Until these trials are conducted, we would advise caution in deriving absolute conclusions.

Endo-anal ultrasound versus endo-anal magnetic resonance imaging for the depiction of external anal sphincter pathology in patients with faecal incontinence: a systematic review

Objective: To evaluate the endo-anal ultrasound (EAUS) versus endo-anal magnetic resonance imaging (EAMRI) in the diagnosis of external anal sphincter defects (EAS) in patients with faecal incontinence (FI). Methods: Studies on EAUS and EAMRI were selected and analyzed to generate summative data. Results: Five studies encompassing 347 patients of FI were included in this review. Three studies validated the results of EAUS and EAMRI by surgery (61 patients). In the fixed effect model, EAUS was superior to EAMRI in the depiction of EAS defects. On combined analysis of five studies using fixed effect model, both EAUS and EAMRI were equally effective. However, there was a significant heterogeneity between studies. Conclusion: EAUS and EAMRI are comparable in the diagnosis of EAS defects in patients of FI. Since EAUS is an economical, quicker and easily available imaging modality, it may be used a preferable investigation for the diagnosis of EAS defects in patients of FI.