[Protective colostomy and protective ileostomy for the prevention of anastomotic leak in patients with rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and radical surgery].

Objective: To investigate whether protective colostomy and protective ileostomy have different impact on anastomotic leak for rectal cancer patients after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) and radical surgery. Methods: A retrospectively cohort study was conducted. Inclusion criteria: (1) Standard neoadjuvant therapy before operation; (2) Laparoscopic rectal cancer radical resection was performed; (3) During the operation, the protective enterostomy was performed including transverse colostomy and ileostomy; (4) The patients were followed up regularly; (5) Clinical data was complete. Exclusion criteria: (1) Colostomy and radical resection of rectal cancer were not performed at the same time; (2) Intestinal anastomosis is not included in the operation, such as abdominoperineal resection; (3) Rectal cancer had distant metastasis or multiple primary colorectal cancer. Finally 208 patients were included in this study. They suffered from rectal cancer and underwent protective stoma in radical surgery after nCRT at our hospital from January 2014 to December 2018. There were 148 males and 60 females with age of (60.5±11.1) years. They were divided into protective transverse colostomy group (n=148) and protective ileostomy group (n=60). The main follow up information included whether the patient has anastomotic leak and the type of leak according to ISREC Grading standard. Besides, stoma opening time, stoma flow, postoperative hospital stay, stoma related complications and postoperative intestinal flora were also collected. Results: A total of 28 cases(13.5%) suffered from anastomotic leak and 26 (92.9%) of them happened in the early stage after surgery (less than 30 days) . As for these early-stage leak, ISREC Grade A happened in 11 cases(42.3%), grade B in 15 cases(57.7%) and no grade C occurred. There was no significant difference in the incidence [12.8% (19/148) vs. 15.0% (9/60) , χ(2)=0.171, P=0.679] or type [Grade A: 5.4%(8/147) vs. 5.1%(3/59); Grade B: 6.8%(10/147) vs. 8.5%(5/59), Z=0.019, P=1.000] of anastomotic leak between the transverse colostomy group and ileostomy group (P>0.05), as well as operation time, postoperative hospital stay, drainage tube removal time or stoma reduction time (P>0.05). There were 10 cases (6.8%) and 24 cases (40.0%) suffering from intestinal flora imbalance in protective transverse colostomy and protective ileostomy group, respectively (χ(2)=34.503, P<0.001). Five cases (8.3%) suffered from renal function injury in the protective ileostomy group, while protective colostomy had no such concern (P=0.002). The incidence of peristomal dermatitis in the protective colostomy group was significantly lower than that in the protective ileostomy group [12.8% (9/148) vs. 33.3%(20/60), χ(2)=11.722, P=0.001]. Conclusions: It is equally feasible and effective for rectal cancer patients after nCRT to carry out protective transverse colostomy or ileostomy in radical surgery. However, we should pay more attention to protective ileostomy patients, as they are at high risk of intestinal flora imbalance, renal function injury and peristomal dermatitis.