Comparison of purse-string technique vs linear suture for skin closure after ileostomy reversal. A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Protective stoma after rectal surgery has been associated with important complications. The most common is surgical site infection (SSI) high rates after stoma reversal reported in literature. Our study compared the rate of SSI of two skin closure techniques, linear closure, and purse string closure. METHODS: We carried out a single center, prospective, randomized controlled trial in the Department of Colorectal Surgery of Fondazione Policlinico Campus Bio-Medico of Rome between January 2018 through December 2021, to compare LC vs PS closure of ileostomy sites. RESULTS: A total of 117 patients (53.84% male) with a mean age of 65.68 ± 14.33 years were finally evaluated in the study. 58 patients were included in the PS group and 59 patients in the LC one. There was a marked difference in the SSI rate between the two arms of the study: 3 of 58 patients in the purse-string arm versus 11 of 59 in the control arm (p = 0.043). The outcome of cosmesis was also higher in PS, with a statistical significance (mean ± DS 4,01 ± 0,73 for PS group vs mean ± DS 2,38 ± 0,72 for LC group, p < 0,001). CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrated that the PS technique had a significantly lower incidence of stoma site SSI compared with LC technique. Our findings are in line with other randomized studies and suggest that PS closure could be considered as standard of care for wound closure after ileostomy reversal.

Comparison of hand-sewn anterior repair, resection and hand-sewn anastomosis, resection and stapled anastomosis techniques for the reversal of diverting loop ileostomy after low anterior rectal resection: a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Low anterior resection in patients with rectal cancer may require a defunctioning loop ileostomy formation that requires closure after a period of time. There are three common techniques for ileostomy closure: anterior repair (AR or fold-over closure), resection and hand-sewn anastomosis (RHA), and resection and stapled anastomosis (RSA). We aimed to compare them on the basis of operative and postoperative features. METHODS: Patients with rectal cancer who underwent low anterior resection without complications were included in this study and randomly assigned to three parallel groups to undergo loop ileostomy closure via either AR, RHA, or RSA. Early and late outcomes were gathered from all included patients. RESULTS: Among 93 patients with a mean age of 56.21 ± 11.78 years, consisting of 58 (62.4%) men, 31 patients underwent AR, 30 patients RHA, and 32 patients RSA. There was no significant difference among the groups regarding the frequency and location of intraoperative injuries (P = 0.157). The AR groups demonstrated significantly less consumption of gauzes following intraoperative bleeding compared to the two others groups. The results showed that the duration of surgery in the RSA was significantly shorter than in the AR or RHA group (both P < 0.001). Regarding postoperative course, only one case of hematoma and two cases of surgical wound infection occurred in the RHA group. Anastomotic leakage and complete or partial obstruction did not occur in any group of patients. Latent postoperative complications did not occur in any group of patients. The median time between surgery and discharge as well as the interval until first gas passage, first defecation, oral tolerated liquid diet, as well as oral tolerated soft and regular diet in the AR group were significantly lower than in the two other groups (both P < 0.001). However, there was no statistical difference in these intervals between the RHA and RSA groups. CONCLUSIONS: Resection and stapled anastomosis had the shortest duration among the three techniques; however, anterior repair had faster recovery, including earlier tolerated oral diet, gas passing and defecation, and discharge, in comparison with the other techniques. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registration number IRCT20120129008861N5.

Early diverting stoma closure is feasible and safe: results from a before-and-after study on the implementation of an early closure protocol at a tertiary referral center.

BACKGROUND: Evidence on early closure (EC) of defunctioning stoma (DS) after colorectal surgery shows a favorable effect when patients are carefully selected. Therefore, a clinical pathway adapted to the implementation of an EC strategy was developed in our center. The aim of this study was to carry out a comparative analysis of time until DS closure and DS-related morbidity before and after the implementation of an EC protocol (ECP). METHODS: This study is a before-and-after comparative analysis. Patients were divided into two cohorts according to the observational period: patients from the period before the ECP implementation (January 2015-December 2019) [Period 1] and those from the period after that (January 2020-December 2022) [Period 2]. All consecutive patients subjected to elective DS closure within both periods were eligible. Early closure was defined as the reversal within 30 days from DS creation. Patients excluded from EC or those not closed within 30 days since primary surgery were analyzed as late closure (LC). Baseline characteristics and DS-related morbidity were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 145 patients were analyzed. Median time with DS was shorter in patients after ECP implementation [42 (21-193) days versus 233 (137-382) days, p < 0.001]. This reduction in time to closure did not impact the DS closure morbidity and resulted in less DS morbidity (68.8% versus 49.2%, p = 0.017) and fewer stoma nurse visits (p = 0.029). CONCLUSIONS: The ECP was able to significantly reduce intervals to restoration of bowel continuity in patients with DS, which in turn resulted in a direct impact on the reduction of DS morbidity without negatively affecting DS closure morbidity.

Bowel stimulation before loop ileostomy closure to reduce postoperative ileus: a multicenter, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of preoperative bowel stimulation on the development of postoperative ileus (POI) after loop ileostomy closure. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized controlled trial (NCT025596350) including adult (≥ 18 years old) patients who underwent elective loop ileostomy closure at 7 participating hospitals. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) using a centralized computer-generated sequence with block randomization to either preoperative bowel stimulation or no stimulation (control group). Bowel stimulation consisted of 10 outpatient sessions within the 3 weeks prior to ileostomy closure and was performed by trained Enterostomal Therapy nurses. The primary outcome was POI, defined as an intolerance to oral food in the absence of clinical or radiological signs of obstruction, on or after postoperative day 3, that either (a) required nasogastric tube insertion; or (b) was associated with two of the following: nausea/vomiting, abdominal distension, or the absence of flatus. RESULTS: Between January 2017 and November 2020, 101 patients were randomized, and 5 patients never underwent ileostomy closure; thus, 96 patients (47 stimulated vs. 49 control) were analyzed according to a modified intention-to-treat protocol. Baseline characteristics were well balanced in both groups. The incidence of POI was lower among patients randomized to stimulation (6.4% vs. 24.5%, p = 0.034; unadjusted RR: 0.26, 95% CI 0.078-0.87). Stimulated patients also had earlier median time to first flatus (2.0 days (1.0-2.0) vs. 2.0 days (2.0-3.0), p = 0.025), were more likely to pass flatus on postoperative day 1 (46.8% vs. 22.4%, p = 0.022), and had a shorter median postoperative hospital stay (3.0 days (2.0-3.5) vs. 4.0 days (2.0-6.0), p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative bowel stimulation via the efferent limb of the ileostomy reduced POI after elective loop ileostomy closure.

Stapled side-to-side anastomosis for ileostomy reversal: a simple and reproducible technique with video.

INTRODUCTION: Protective diverting ileostomy is commonly performed in rectal surgery to avoid septic complications of low colorectal anastomosis. Ileostomy closure usually occurs three months after the surgery and can be realized in two ways: hand sewn or stapled. Existing randomized studies comparing the two techniques showed no difference in terms of complications. METHODS: Our study describes the standard technique of ileostomy reversal as done in Bordeaux University Hospital in 10 steps individually illustrated and with an explicative video. We also collected data concerning the 50 last patients who underwent an ileostomy reversal in our center from June 2021 to June 2022. RESULTS: Mean duration of the ileostomy closure was 46.8 minutes, and the mean total hospital stay was 4.66 days. Five of 50 (10%) patients had a post-operative bowel obstruction, 2/50 (4%) patients had a post-operative bleeding, 1/50 (2%) patient had a wound infection, and there was no anastomotic leakage observed. CONCLUSION: Stapled side-to-side anastomosis is a rapid, simple, and reproducible technique for ileostomy reversal. There are no more complications compared to hand-sewn anastomosis. It engenders an additional cost compensated by the gain in operating time which altogether saves money.

Synthetic mesh versus biological mesh to prevent incisional hernia after loop-ileostomy closure: a randomized feasibility trial.

BACKGROUND: Incisional hernia is a frequent complication after loop-ileostomy closure, rationalizing hernia prevention. Biological meshes have been widely used in contaminated surgical sites instead of synthetic meshes in fear of mesh related complications. However, previous studies on meshes does not support this practice. The aim of Preloop trial was to study the safety and efficacy of synthetic mesh compared to a biological mesh in incisional hernia prevention after loop-ileostomy closure. METHODS: The Preloop randomized, feasibility trial was conducted from April 2018 until November 2021 in four hospitals in Finland. The trial enrolled 102 patients with temporary loop-ileostomy after anterior resection for rectal cancer. The study patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either a light-weight synthetic polypropylene mesh (Parietene Macro™, Medtronic) (SM) or a biological mesh (Permacol™, Medtronic) (BM) to the retrorectus space at ileostomy closure. The primary end points were rate of surgical site infections (SSI) at 30-day follow-up and incisional hernia rate during 10 months' follow-up period. RESULTS: Of 102 patients randomized, 97 received the intended allocation. At 30-day follow-up, 94 (97%) patients were evaluated. In the SM group, 1/46 (2%) had SSI. Uneventful recovery was reported in 38/46 (86%) in SM group. In the BM group, 2/48 (4%) had SSI (p > 0.90) and in 43/48 (90%) uneventful recovery was reported. The mesh was removed from one patient in both groups (p > 0.90). CONCLUSIONS: Both a synthetic mesh and biological mesh were safe in terms of SSI after loop-ileostomy closure. Hernia prevention efficacy will be published after the study patients have completed the 10 months' follow-up.

Comparative short-term and survival outcomes of three specimen extraction techniques in laparoscopic low rectal cancer surgery: does it affect ileostomy closure?

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to compare the short-term and survival outcomes in laparoscopic low rectal cancer surgery with three different specimen extraction techniques, and whether it affects loop ileostomy closure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A consecutive series of patients with low rectal cancer who underwent laparoscopic low anterior resection plus protective loop ileostomy (LAR-PLI) were enrolled. Three main techniques, namely specimen extraction through auxiliary incision (EXAI), specimen extraction through stoma incision (EXSI), and specimen eversion and extra-abdominal resection (EVER), were employed. The postoperative short-term and survival outcomes of the three techniques and the impact on loop ileostomy closure were compared. RESULTS: In all, 254 patients were enrolled in this study: 104 (40.9%) in the EXAI group, 104 (40.9%) in the EXSI group, and 46 (18.1%) in the EVER group. For primary surgery, EXAI group had significantly longer operative time (P < 0.001), more intraoperative bleeding (P < 0.001), longer length of abdominal incision (P<0.001), longer time to first flatus (P < 0.001), longer time to first defecation (P < 0.001), longer time to first eat (P < 0.001), and longer postoperative hospital stays (P = 0.005) than the EXSI and EVER groups. The primary postoperative complication rate in the EXAI and EVER group was significantly higher than in the EXSI group (P = 0.005). In loop ileostomy closure, EXAI group had significantly longer operative time (P = 0.001), more bleeding volume, and longer postoperative hospital stays (P < 0.001) than the EXSI and EVER groups. For survival outcomes, the 3-year local recurrence-free survival (LRFS) is 92.6% for all patients. The 3-year LRFS for patients in EXAI, EXSI, and EVER were 90.1%, 95.4%, and 92.7%, with P = 0.476. CONCLUSIONS: Our single-center results found that in LAR-PLI surgery for low rectal cancer, the short-term outcomes of specimen extraction through the stoma incision or anus were better than that through the auxiliary incision, but the 3-year LRFS was no statistically different.

Early versus delayed defunctioning ileostomy closure after low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of safety and functional outcomes.

PURPOSE: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis (TSA) to answer whether early closure of defunctioning ileostomy may be suitable after low anterior resection. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched, up to October 2021, for RCTs comparing early closure (EC ≤ 30 days) and delayed closure (DC ≥ 60 days) of defunctioning ileostomy. The risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI was calculated for dichotomous variables and the mean difference (MD) with 95% CI for continuous variables. The GRADE methodology was implemented for assessing Quality of Evidence (QoE). TSA was implemented to address the risk of random error associated with sparse data and/or multiple testing. RESULTS: Seven RCTs were included for quantitative synthesis. 599 patients were allocated to either EC (n = 306) or DC (n = 293). EC was associated with a higher rate of wound complications compared to DC (RR 2.56; 95% CI 1.33 to 4.93; P = 0.005; I2 = 0%, QoE High), a lower incidence of postoperative small bowel obstruction (RR 0.46; 95% CI 0.24 to 0.89; P = 0.02; I2 = 0%, QoE moderate), and a lower rate of stoma-related complications (RR 0.26; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.42; P < 0.00001; I2 = 0%, QoE moderate). The rate of minor low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) (RR 1.13; 95% CI 0.55 to 2.33; P = 0.74; I2 = 0%, QoE low) and major LARS (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.59 to 1.09; P = 0.16; I2 = 0%, QoE low) did not differ between the two groups. TSA demonstrated inconclusive evidence with insufficient sample sizes to detect the observed effects. CONCLUSION: EC may confer some advantages compared with a DC. However, TSA advocated a cautious interpretation of the results. PROSPERO REGISTER ID: CRD42021276557.

Risk factors for postoperative ileus after diverting loop ileostomy closure.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative ileus is one of the most common complications after diverting loop ileostomy closure. Some reports have investigated the risk factors for postoperative complications or ileus after ileostomy closure; however, these studies did not evaluate the index surgery sufficiently. In this study, we evaluated the risk factors, including the details of the index surgery, for ileus after diverting ileostomy closure. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of patients who underwent ileostomy closure following index surgery for rectal cancer. Patients who developed postoperative ileus [POI (+)] and patients who did not [POI (-)] after ileostomy closure were compared. RESULTS: Sixty-eight patients were evaluated and were divided into two groups: POI (+) (n = 11) and POI (-) (n = 57), and the groups were compared. There were no significant differences in the details of the index surgery, operative procedure, transanal total mesorectal excision, lateral lymph node dissection, operating time, or blood loss. The incidence of Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ III complications and adjuvant chemotherapy after index surgery were significantly higher in the POI (+) group. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ III complications and adjuvant chemotherapy after index surgery may increase the risk of postoperative ileus after ileostomy closure.

Prognostic factors for complications after loop ileostomy reversal.

BACKGROUND: Defunctioning ileostomy creation and closure are both associated with morbidity. There is little data available about complications after ileostomy closure. The aim of this study was to evaluate morbidity related to loop ileostomy closure (LIC) and to determine if patients with postoperative complications in primary surgery suffer from more postoperative complications during stoma closure. METHODS: This was a retrospective study on prospectively registered consecutive patients undergoing elective LIC in a single centre in Spain between April 2010 and December 2017. Baseline characteristics, postoperative complications after primary surgery and after stoma closure were recorded. Primary surgery included any colorectal resection, elective or urgent associated with a diverting loop ileostomy either as a protective stoma or rescue procedure. A logistic regression model was used to assess the effects of baseline variables and postoperative complications after primary surgery on the existence of postoperative complications related to LIC. RESULTS: Four hundred and twenty-eight patients (288 men, median age 64.5 years [IQR 55.1-72.3 years]) were included in the study, and 37.4%, developed complications after LIC. The most common was paralytic ileus. Only chronic kidney disease (OR 2.31; 95% CI 1.03-5.33, p = 0.043), existence of postoperative complications after primary surgery (OR 2.25; 95% CI 1.41-3.66, p = < 0.001) and ileostomy closure later than 10 months after primary surgery (OR 1.52; 95% CI 1.00-2.33, p = 0.049) were statistically significant in the multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with chronic kidney disease, those who had any complication after primary surgery and those who had LIC > 10 months after primary surgery have a significantly higher risk of developing postoperative complications.

Can physiological stimulation prior to ileostomy closure reduce postoperative ileus? A prospective multicenter pilot study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess the impact of ileostomy closure following preoperative physiological stimulation (PPS) on postoperative ileus (POI) in patients with loop ileostomy after low anterior resection for rectal cancer. METHODS: Patients who underwent ileostomy closure between January 2017 and February 2020 in two tertiary referral centers were prospectively included. PPS stimulation was compared to standard treatment. Stimulation was carried out daily during the 15 days prior to ileostomy closure by the patient's self-instillation of 200 ml of fecal contents from the ileostomy bag via the efferent loop, using a rectal catheter. Standard treatment (ST) consisted of observation. Outcomes measures were POI, morbidity, stimulation feasibility, and predictors to ileus. RESULTS: A total of 58 patients were included [42 males and 16 females, median age 67 (43-85) years]. PPS was used in 24 patients, who completed the entire stimulation process, and ST in 34 patients. No differences in preoperative factors were found between the two groups. POI was significantly lower in the PPS group (4.2%) vs the ST group (32.4%); p < 0.01, OR: 0.05 (CI 95% 0.01-0.65). The PPS group had a shorter time to restoration of bowel function (1 day vs 3 days) p = 0.02 and a shorter time to tolerance of liquids (1 day vs 2 days), p = 0.04. Age (p = 0.01), open approach at index surgery, p = 0.03, adjuvant capecitabine (p = 0.01). and previous abdominal surgeries (p = 0.02) were associated with POI in the multivariate analysis. C-reactive-protein values on the 3rd (p = 0.02) and 5th (p < 0.01) postoperative day were also associated with POI. CONCLUSIONS: PPS for patients who underwent ileostomy closure after low anterior resection for rectal cancer is feasible and might reduce POI.

The Outcome of Late versus Early Ileostomy Closure at Low Body Weight (<1500 g) in Babies with Necrotizing Enterocolitis.

Aim: The aim of this study is to determine the surgical outcome of ileostomy closure at low body weight (<1500 g) and to find any differences in complications and growth of infants whose ileostomy was reversed early (4-6 weeks) versus late (8-10 weeks). Methods: A prospective comparative study was conducted on patients who underwent ileostomy reversal created for necrotizing enterocolitis from January 2017 to December 2019. The patients were divided into two groups: group 1 (early ileostomy closure) between 4 and 6 weeks and Group 2 (late closure) between 8 and 10 weeks. The primary outcome was expressed as the presence of anastomotic leak, obstruction, perforation, wound infection, sepsis, and death. Results: A cohort of 31 patients with 16 patients in Group 1 and 15 in Group 2 were studied. The mean duration between ostomy creation and reversal was 5.1 ± 0.63 weeks in Group 1 and 8.9 ± 0.66 weeks in Group 2. The mean weight at reversal was 1435.5 ± 163.8 g for patients in Group 1 and 1405 ± 99.93 g for patients in Group 2. Weight gain at 90 days in Group 1 was 895 ± 85.2 g and in Group 2 was 455 ± 34.6 g, which was statistically significant (P < 0.00001). Parenteral nutrition, ability to reach full enteral nutrition, and total ventilator days, mortality rate, and complications were not statistically different between the groups. The overall survival rate was 87.27%. Conclusions: Ileostomy reversal at a lower weight and within 6 weeks was not associated with an increased risk of complications. Early stoma reversal may help in weight gain.

Early Feeding versus Traditional Feeding in Children with Ileostomy Closure.

Context: Elective intestinal anastomosis is a frequently used surgical procedure in pediatric surgery. Aims: This study aimed to compare postoperative complications and hospital stay in children who underwent ileostomy closure with early feeding in the 1st 24 h versus those in whom the oral route was initiated traditionally. Settings and Design: Observational, comparative, cross-sectional, ambispective, and single-center study that included pediatric patients who had undergone ileostomy closure from January 2017 to August 2019. Materials and Methods: Data were analyzed in SPSS. Statistical analysis was used: the variables were analyzed using the Chi-square test or Fisher's exact test when the former could not be applied. Results: They were divided into the following two groups: group 1 included patients who started the oral route early (n = 25) and Group 2 included patients who started the oral route late (n = 20). The average in-hospital stay for Group 1 was 5.48 days and that for Group 2 was 8.35 days. In Group 1, the oral route was started with a mean of 9.32 h and in Group 2 at 146.4 h. Those in Group 1 at 32.9 h presented their first evacuation and Group 2 at 131.45 h. Group 1 reached their normal diet on average at 79.96 h and Group 2 at 172.8 h. Conclusions: This comparison between early oral feeding and traditional oral feeding suggests that various benefits exist when enteral nutrition is initiated early after ileostomy closure in pediatric patients. The benefits and importance of initiating early oral feeding in adults have been reported, but there are few studies on pediatric populations.

Loop-ileostomy reversal in a 23-h stay setting is safe with high patient satisfaction.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to determine whether day-case closure of loop ileostomy with discharge within 23 h was both feasible and accepted by patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a prospective pilot study where selected rectal cancer patients with diverting loop ileostomy underwent stoma closure in a 23-h stay setting. Patients were followed up on the third, seventh, and 30th postoperative day and phoned daily during the first week. A comparable group of 30 patients who underwent standard in-hospital stoma closure prior to the start of the study were selected retrospectively as historical controls. RESULTS: In total, 30 patients (median age, 67 years; range, 41-79 years) were included. All patients met discharge criteria and were discharged within 23 h of surgery, except one. In total, seven patients (23%) were admitted. Two of these patients underwent laparotomy because of anastomotic leakage and small bowel obstruction, respectively. The mean total length of stay was 1.7 days. Most patients (87%) were satisfied with the treatment without feeling neglected or anxious and preferred the 23-h stay setting. In the control group, the mean length of stay was 5 days. Seven patients (23%) were readmitted. Two of these patients underwent laparotomy because of small bowel obstruction and abscess, respectively. CONCLUSION: Ileostomy closure in a 23-h stay setting in selected patients with meticulous follow up is feasible and safe with high patient satisfaction. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV NUMBER: (NCT02774447).

Safety of early ileostomy closure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

PURPOSE: Patients with a defunctioning ileostomy after rectal resection experience substantial ileostomy-related morbidity and decreased quality of life. Early reversal of the defunctioning ileostomy has been proposed as a method of mitigating these problems. We aimed to evaluate the safety of early ileostomy closure within 6 weeks. METHOD: Randomized controlled trials investigating the safety of early ileostomy closure were identified through a systematic search and review of the current literature. Meta-analysis of the extracted outcome data was performed, and the methodological quality of the individual studies was assessed. RESULTS: The search identified six eligible studies yielding a total of 528 patients, with 269 in the early closure (EC) group and 259 in the standard closure (SC) group. Major complications in the EC group was 5.2% compared with 3.6% in the SC group (RR = 1.12, 95% CI 0.33-3.79). Anastomotic leakage in the EC group was 3.3% compared with 3.5% in the SC group (RR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.29-2.75). The meta-analysis resulted in no statistically significant differences between the groups in any of the primary or secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: This review was not able to discern a statistically significant difference in postoperative complications when comparing early and standard ileostomy closure. The current literature indicates that early ileostomy closure is not associated with higher complication rates in patients with an uncomplicated postoperative course and radiologically verified intact distal anastomosis after index surgery.

Extended duration of faecal diversion is associated with increased ileus upon loop ileostomy reversal.

AIM: The timing of ileostomy reversal has been the subject of controversy, with researchers investigating the safety of early versus late stoma closure. Anecdotally, a longer duration of faecal diversion is associated with a greater incidence of postoperative ileus. We sought to investigate the association between duration of diversion and postoperative ileus. METHOD: We conducted an institutional retrospective cohort study on 173 patients undergoing ileostomy closure between 2012 and 2018. Our primary outcome was ileus; secondary outcomes included postoperative complications and descriptive factors. We investigated the association between duration of diversion and ileus using several analyses to ensure that time was treated appropriately as a continuous, nonlinear variable. RESULTS: In all, 20.2% of patients had an ileus. Multivariate analysis did not identify a significant association between any independent predictors and ileus, although there was a trend towards increased risk of ileus with increasing duration of diversion. When treated as a categorical variable, a duration of diversion >328 days independently increased the odds of ileus (OR = 3.25, P = 0.033). Duration of diversion was associated with days to first flatus and to first diet (P = 0.025 and P = 0.004, respectively). When patients received nasogastric intubation, the mean duration of intubation was 3.2 days. CONCLUSION: Greater duration of diversion was associated with a trend towards increased risk of ileus; this risk tripled when diversion lasted more than 328 days.

Early postoperative outcomes of diverting loop ileostomy closure surgery following laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Although diverting loop ileostomy (DLI) formation reduces the consequences of anastomotic leak and may also decrease the incidence of this severe complication, DLI closure can result in significant complications. The laparoscopic approach in colorectal surgery has numerous benefits, including reduced length of stay (LOS), less wound infection, and better cosmesis. The aim of this study was to determine whether a laparoscopic approach at the time of the ileostomy creation has a beneficial effect on the outcomes of ileostomy closure. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of an IRB-approved prospective database was performed for all patients who underwent DLI closure between 2010 and 2017. Patients' demographics, operative reports, and postoperative course were reviewed. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS software and included descriptive statistics, Chi-square for categorical variables, and Student's t tests for continuous variables. Skewed variables were compared using the non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test. Regression analysis for overall complications and LOS were preformed to further assess the impact of laparoscopy. RESULTS: We identified 795 patients (363 females) who underwent DLI reversal surgery. The surgical approach in the index operation was laparoscopy in 65% of patients. Conversion to laparotomy at the ileostomy closure occurred in 6.1% of patients. The overall complication rate was lower and the LOS was shorter for patients who underwent DLI closure following laparoscopic surgery. Laparoscopy at the index operation was also associated with a lower incidence of postoperative ileus and a lower estimated blood loss (EBL) at the time of DLI reversal. Multivariate regression analysis found laparoscopy to have significant benefits compared to laparotomy for overall complications and for LOS. CONCLUSION: Ileostomy closure following laparoscopic colorectal surgery offers benefits including reductions in LOS and overall complications.

A combination of subcuticular sutures and subcutaneous closed-suction drainage reduces the risk of incisional surgical site infection in loop ileostomy closure.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a wound closure method using a combination of subcuticular sutures and subcutaneous closed-suction drainage (SS closure) for preventing incisional surgical site infection (SSI) in loop ileostomy closure. METHODS: A total of 178 consecutive patients who underwent loop ileostomy closure at Nara Medical University Hospital between 2004 and 2018 were retrospectively assessed. The patients were divided into 2 groups: the conventional skin closure (CC) group from 2004 to 2009 (75 patients) and the SS closure (SS) group from 2010 to 2018 (103 patients). The incidence of incisional SSI was compared between the two groups, and the factors associated with incisional SSI were examined by univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: Incisional SSI occurred in 7 cases (9.3%) in the CC group but was significantly reduced to only 1 case (0.9%) in the SS group (p = 0.034). In the univariate analysis, the hemoglobin levels, serum creatinine levels, and SS closure were associated with incisional SSI. SS closure was the only independent preventive factor for incisional SSI according to the multivariate analysis (hazard ratio = 0.24, p = 0.011). CONCLUSION: The combination of subcuticular sutures and subcutaneous closed-suction drainage may be a promising way of preventing incisional SSI in loop ileostomy closure.

Self-administered succus entericus reinfusion before ileostomy closure improves short-term outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: The study aims to assess whether reinfusion of succus entericus prior to ileostomy closure can decrease postoperative length of stay and ameliorate low anterior resection score. METHODS: This study is a retrospective analysis based on prospectively collected data. Patients were screened from May 2016 to November 2019. A total of 30 patients who underwent reinfusion with succus entericus (SER) were enrolled in the SER group and 42 patients without SER were enrolled in the non-SER group. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative ileus between succus entericus reinfusion (SER) group and the control group. Time to first passage of flatus or stool after surgery in the SER group (27.9 ± 6.02 h) is significantly shorter than the control group (32.3 ± 6.26, hours p = 0.004). Compared with the control group (5.52 (4.0-7.0) days), postoperative length of stay in the SER group was 4.90 (3.0-7.0)days (p = 0.009). As for low anterior resection score(LARS), the SER group had a lower score 1 week after discharge than the control group (p = 0.034). However, 1 month after discharge, the LARS in the two groups had no significant difference. CONCLUSIONS: Self-administered succus entericus reinfusion is a feasible prehabilitation management for outpatients and can improve better outcomes. Compared with non-reinfusion group, succus enterius reinfusion group displays significantly shorter time for gastrointestinal function recovery and postoperative hospital stay without increasing complication, and it can bring better quality of life in a short term.

Effectiveness of negative pressure wound therapy for the wound of ileostomy closure: a multicenter, phase II randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The American Society of Surgery and American Society for Surgical Infections issued guidelines for surgical site infections (SSIs) in December 2016. These guidelines recommend a purse-string suture (PSS) for stoma closure as it facilitates granulation and enables open wound drainage. This study investigated the effect of using negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) along with standard PSS and aimed to determine the optimal period of NPWT use. METHODS: The patients were divided into three groups as follows: Group A, postoperative wound management alone with gauze exchange as the representative of conventional PSS; Group B, the performed management was similar to that of Group A plus NPWT for 1 week; and Group C, the performed management was similar to that of Group A plus NPWT for 2 weeks. Regarding objective measures, the wound reduction rate was the primary outcome, and the incidence of SSIs, length of hospital stay, and wound healing duration were the secondary outcomes. RESULTS: In total, 30 patients (male: 18, female: 12) were enrolled. The average age was 63 (range: 43-84) years. The wound reduction rate was significantly higher in Group B than in Group A on postoperative days (PODs) 7 (66.1 vs. 48.4%, p = 0.049) and 10 (78.6 vs. 58.2%, p = 0.011), whereas no significant difference was observed on POD 14. Compared with Group A, Group C (POD 7: 65.9%, POD 10: 69.2%) showed an increase in the wound reduction rate on POD 7, although the difference was not significant (p = 0.075). SSIs were observed in Groups B (n = 2) and C (n = 2) (20%) but not in Group A (0%). CONCLUSIONS: The most effective duration of NPWT use for ileostomy closure with PSS in terms of the maximum wound reduction rate was from PODs 3 to 10. However, NPWT did not shorten the wound healing duration. NPWT may reduce the wound size but should be used with precautions for SSIs. The small sample size (30 cases), the use of only one type of NPWT system, and the fact that wound assessment was subjective and not blinded were the limitations of this study. Further studies are needed to confirm our findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: UMIN Clinical Trials Registry; UMIN000032174 (10/04/2018).