Conversion of Failed J-Pouch to Kock Pouch: Indications, Contraindications, and Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The IPAA has been successful in restoring intestinal continuity and preserving continence in the majority of patients requiring a proctocolectomy. However, a subset of individuals experience significant complications that might result in pouch failure. The conversion of the J-pouch to a continent ileostomy pouch represents a significant surgical procedure. In this article, we discuss the indications and contraindications, present the technical principles applied for the conversion, and describe the outcomes of such conversion in the literature. OBJECTIVE: The main objective during the conversion of the J-pouch to a continent ileostomy is the creation of a sufficiently sized reservoir with a high-quality valve mechanism while preserving as much small bowel as possible. CONCLUSIONS: The conversion of the J-pouch to a continent ileostomy represents a significant surgical procedure. When performed in centers of expertise, it can be a good option for patients who otherwise will require an end ileostomy. Indications for conversion include most cases of J-pouch failure, with a few important exceptions. See video from symposium .

A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of Single-Port Vs Multiport Laparoscopic Total Abdominal Colectomy With End Ileostomy for Medically Refractory Ulcerative Colitis.

BACKGROUND: Medically refractory ulcerative colitis necessitates surgical intervention, with total abdominal colectomy with end ileostomy being a definitive treatment. The comparison between single-port and multiport laparoscopic surgery outcomes remains underexplored. OBJECTIVE: To compare the surgical outcomes of single-port versus multiport laparoscopic surgery in patients undergoing total abdominal colectomy with end ileostomy for medically refractory ulcerative colitis. DESIGN: A retrospective analysis comparing single-port to multiport surgery in patients with ulcerative colitis from 2010 to 2020. Patients were propensity score-matched 3:1 (multiport to single-port) on baseline characteristics. SETTINGS: Single-center academic hospital. PATIENTS: A total of 756 patients with medically refractory ulcerative colitis who underwent multiport vs single-port total abdominal colectomy with end ileostomy from 2010 to 2020 were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Binary outcomes were compared using a multivariable logistic regression model, and a subset analysis was conducted for postoperative stump leak based on stump implantation during surgery. These metrics were compared between the single-port and multiport groups to assess the differences in surgical outcomes. RESULTS: The multiport and single-port groups included 642 and 114 patients, respectively. The matched cohort included 342 multiports and 114 single ports. We observed a statistically significant difference in mean operation time, with the single-port procedure taking 43 minutes less than the multiport laparoscopy. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in postoperative stump leaks, postoperative ileus, stoma site complications, postoperative readmission within 30 days, postoperative reoperation within 30 days, and subsequent IPAA surgery. In the subset analysis, stump implantation was associated with a higher risk of stump leak in the multiport group. The single-port group had a shorter hospital stay. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective nature and being conducted at a single center. CONCLUSION: Single-incision laparoscopic total abdominal colectomy in the treatment of mucosal ulcerative colitis is a safe, effective, and efficient approach. In our cohort, single-incision laparoscopy has had shorter operation times and better overall length of stay compared with the multiport approach. Taking into account a less invasive approach, decreased abdominal trauma, and faster recovery, single-port surgery is a viable alternative to multiport surgery. See Video Abstract . UN ANLISIS EMPAREJADO POR PUNTUACIN DE PROPENSIN DE LA COLECTOMA ABDOMINAL TOTAL LAPAROSCPICA CON PUERTO NICO VERSUS PUERTO MLTIPLE CON ILEOSTOMA TERMINAL PARA LA COLITIS ULCEROSA MDICAMENTE REFRACTARIA: ANTECEDENTES:La colitis ulcerosa (CU) médicamente refractaria requiere una intervención quirúrgica, siendo la colectomía abdominal total con ileostomía terminal un tratamiento definitivo. La comparación entre los resultados de la cirugía laparoscópica con puerto único y con puerto múltiple aún no se ha explorado lo suficiente.OBJETIVO:Comparar los resultados quirúrgicos de la cirugía laparoscópica con puerto único versus con puerto múltiple en pacientes sometidos a colectomía abdominal total con ileostomía terminal para CU médicamente refractaria.DISEÑO:Un análisis retrospectivo que comparó la cirugía de puerto único con la de puerto múltiple en pacientes con CU de 2010 a 2020. Los pacientes fueron emparejados por puntuación de propensión 3:1 (puerto múltiple a puerto único) según las características iniciales.AJUSTES:Hospital académico unicentrico.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Los resultados binarios se compararon utilizando un modelo de regresión logística multivariable y se realizó un análisis de subconjunto para la fuga postoperatoria del muñón basado en la implantación del muñón durante la cirugía. Estas métricas se compararon entre los grupos de puerto único y de puerto múltiple para evaluar las diferencias en los resultados quirúrgicos.RESULTADOS:Los grupos de puerto único y multipuerto incluyeron 642 y 114 pacientes, respectivamente. La cohorte emparejada incluyó 342 puertos múltiples y 114 puertos únicos. Observamos una diferencia estadísticamente significativa en el tiempo medio de operación, ya que el procedimiento de puerto único duró 43 minutos menos que la laparoscopia de puerto múltiple. No hubo diferencias significativas entre los dos grupos en las fugas del muñón posoperatorio, el íleo posoperatorio, las complicaciones del sitio del estoma, el reingreso posoperatorio dentro de los 30 días, la reoperación posoperatoria dentro de los 30 días y la cirugía IPAA posterior. En el análisis de subconjunto, la implantación del muñón se asoció con un mayor riesgo de fuga del muñón en el grupo multipuerto. El grupo de puerto único tuvo una estancia hospitalaria más corta.LIMITACIONES:Carácter retrospectivo, realizándose en un único centro.CONCLUSIÓN:La colectomía abdominal total laparoscópica de incisión única en el tratamiento de la colitis ulcerosa mucosa es un enfoque seguro, eficaz y eficiente. En nuestra cohorte, en comparación con el abordaje multipuerto, la laparoscopia de incisión única ha mostrado tiempos de operación más cortos y una mejor duración total de la estancia hospitalaria. Teniendo en cuenta un enfoque menos invasivo, un menor traumatismo abdominal y una recuperación más rápida, la cirugía con puerto único es una alternativa viable a la cirugía con puertos múltiples. (Traducción-Dr. Mauricio Santamaria ).

Postoperative Oral Rehydration and Regimented Follow-up Decrease Readmissions After Colorectal Surgery That Includes Ileostomies.

BACKGROUND: Ileostomies constitute 15% to 43% of readmissions after colorectal surgery, often due to dehydration and acute kidney injury. Prior institutional interventions decreased readmissions but not among patients who underwent new ileostomies. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate readmissions among patients who underwent new ileostomies after postoperative oral rehydration solution and standardized clinic visits. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of prospective database. SETTINGS: Enhanced recovery colorectal surgery service. PATIENTS: Patients who underwent new ileostomy before and after intervention. INTERVENTIONS: Postoperative oral rehydration solution and postdischarge clinic visits with review of inputs/outputs, antimotility and appliance needs, and trained nurse reeducation 4 to 7 days after discharge, 30 days postoperatively, and every 1 to 2 weeks thereafter as needed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Readmission rate due to dehydration/acute kidney injury (primary), emergency department visits, and readmission rates overall and for specific diagnoses. Analysis used univariate and weighted techniques. RESULTS: A total of 312 patients (199 preintervention; 113 postintervention) were included, with a mean age of 59.0 years. Patients were predominantly White (94.9%) and evenly split between men and women. The most common diagnosis was diverticulitis (43.3%). The most common procedure was high anterior resection (38.8%), followed by low anterior resection (16.35%). Patient and procedure characteristics were well matched between groups. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that readmission rate due to dehydration/acute kidney injury significantly decreased between pre- and postintervention study groups (45.7% vs 16.5%, p = 0.039). Emergency department visits due to dehydration/acute kidney injury (12.0% vs 1.7%, p < 0.001) and readmissions from all causes (24.33% vs 10.6%, p = 0.005) also significantly decreased. Other complications were not significantly different between groups. Average stoma output 24 hours before (776 vs 625 mL, p = 0.005) and after (993 vs 890 mL, p = 0.025) discharge was significantly decreased in the postintervention group. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective single-center study. CONCLUSIONS: An oral rehydration solution and frequent standardized postdischarge visits led by trained nursing staff decreased readmissions and emergency department visits among patients who underwent new ileostomies after colorectal surgery. See Video Abstract . LA REHIDRATACIN ORAL POSOPERATORIA Y EL SEGUIMIENTO REGLAMENTADO REDUCEN LOS REINGRESOS EN PACIENTES DE CIRUGA COLORRECTAL CON ILEOSTOMAS: ANTECEDENTES:Las ileostomías constituyen del 15 al 43% de los reingresos después de la cirugía colorrectal, a menudo debido a la deshidratación y la lesión renal aguda. Las intervenciones institucionales previas redujeron los reingresos, pero no entre los pacientes con nuevas ileostomías.OBJETIVO:Evaluar los reingresos entre pacientes con nuevas ileostomías después del uso de solución de rehidratación oral postoperatoria y visitas clínicas estandarizadas.DISEÑO:Análisis retrospectivo de base de datos prospectiva.AJUSTES:Servicio de cirugía colorrectal de recuperación mejorada.PACIENTES:Pacientes con ileostomía nueva antes y después de la intervención.INTERVENCIÓN(ES):Solución de rehidratación oral posoperatoria y visitas clínicas posteriores al alta con revisión de entradas/salidas, antimotilidad y necesidades de aparatos, y reeducación de enfermeras capacitadas 4-7 días después del alta, 30 días después de la operación y cada 1-2 semanas después, según sea necesario.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Tasa de readmisión debido a deshidratación/lesión renal aguda (primaria), tasa de urgencias y de readmisión en general y para diagnósticos específicos. El análisis utilizó técnicas univariadas y ponderadas.RESULTADOS:Se incluyeron un total de 312 pacientes (199 preintervención; 113 postintervención), con una edad media de 59,0 años. Los pacientes eran predominantemente blancos (94,9%) y se dividieron equitativamente entre hombres y mujeres. El diagnóstico más frecuente fue diverticulitis (43,3%). El procedimiento más común fue la resección anterior alta (38,8 %) seguida de la resección anterior baja (16,35 %). Las características del paciente y del procedimiento coincidieron bien entre los grupos. El análisis multivariante demostró que la tasa de reingreso debido a deshidratación/lesión renal aguda disminuyó significativamente entre los grupos de estudio antes y después de la intervención (45,7 % frente a 16,5 %, p = 0,039). Las visitas a urgencias por deshidratación/insuficiencia renal aguda (12,0 % frente a 1,7 %, p < 0,001) y los reingresos por todas las causas (24,33 % frente a 10,6 %, p = 0,005) también disminuyeron significativamente. Otras complicaciones no fueron significativamente diferentes entre los grupos. El gasto medio del estoma 24 horas antes (776 ml frente a 625 ml, p = 0,005) y después (993 ml frente a 890 ml, p = 0,025) del alta disminuyó significativamente en el grupo posterior a la intervención.LIMITACIONES:Estudio retrospectivo de centro único.CONCLUSIONES:Una solución de rehidratación oral y frecuentes visitas estandarizadas posteriores al alta dirigidas por personal de enfermería capacitado redujeron los reingresos y las visitas al servicio de urgencias entre los pacientes con nuevas ileostomías después de la cirugía colorrectal. ( Traducción-Dr. Yolanda Colorado ).

Perioperative outcomes of ileorectal anastomosis - an analysis of 823 patients.

AIM: Ileorectal anastomosis (IRA) following total abdominal colectomy (TAC) allows for resortation of bowel continuity but prior studies have reported rates of anastomotic leak (AL) to be as high as 23%. We aimed to report rates of AL and complications in a large cohort of patients undergoing IRA. We hypothesized that AL rates were lower than previously reported and that selective use of diverting loop ileostomy (DLI) is associated with decreased AL rates. METHOD: Patients undergoing TAC or end-ileostomy reversal with IRA, with or without DLI, between 1980 and 2021 were identified from a prospectively maintained institutional database and retrospectively analysed. Redo IRA cases were excluded. Short-term (30-day) surgical outcomes were collected using our database. AL was defined using a combination of imaging and, in the case of return to the operating room, intraoperative findings. RESULTS: Of 823 patients in the study cohort, DLI was performed in 27% and performed more frequently for constipation and inflammatory bowel disease. The overall AL rate was 3% (1% and 4% in those with and without DLI, respectively) and diversion was found to be protective against leak (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.08-0.94, p = 0.04). However, patients undergoing diversion had a higher overall rate of postoperative complications (51% vs. 36%, p < 0.001) including superficial wound infection, urinary tract infection, dehydration, blood transfusion and portomesenteric venous thrombosis (all p < 0.04). CONCLUSION: Our study represents the largest series of patients undergoing IRA reported to date and demonstrates an AL rate of 3%. While IRA appears to be a viable surgical option for diverse indications, our study underscores the importance of careful patient selection and thoughtful consideration of staging the anastomosis and temporary faecal diversion when necessary.

Is proctoscopy sufficient for the evaluation of colorectal anastomosis prior to ileostomy reversal? A nationwide retrospective analysis of the Italian Society of Surgical Oncology Colorectal Cancer Network Collaborative group (SICO-CCN).

AIM: Several methods for assessing anastomotic integrity have been proposed, but the best is yet to be defined. The aim of this study was to compare the different methods to assess the integrity of colorectal anastomosis prior to ileostomy reversal. METHOD: A retrospective cohort analysis on patients between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2020 with a defunctioning stoma for middle and low rectal anterior resection was performed. A propensity score matching comparison between patients who underwent proctoscopy alone and patients who underwent proctoscopy plus any other preoperative method to assess the integrity of colorectal anastomosis prior to ileostomy reversal (transanal water-soluble contrast enema via conventional radiology, transanal water-soluble contrast enema via CT, and magnetic resonance) was performed. RESULTS: The analysis involved 1045 patients from 26 Italian referral colorectal centres. The comparison between proctoscopy alone versus proctoscopy plus any other preoperative tool showed no significant differences in terms of stenoses (p = 0.217) or leakages (p = 0.103) prior to ileostomy reversal, as well as no differences in terms of misdiagnosed stenoses (p = 0.302) or leakages (p = 0.509). Interestingly, in the group that underwent proctoscopy and transanal water-soluble contrast enema the comparison between the two procedures demonstrated no significant differences in detecting stenoses (2 vs. 0, p = 0.98), while there was a significant difference in detecting leakages in favour of transanal water-soluble contrast enema via CT (3 vs. 12, p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: We can confirm that proctoscopy alone should be considered sufficient prior to ileostomy reversal. However, in cases in which the results of proctoscopy are not completely clear or the surgeon remains suspicious of an anastomotic leakage, transanal water-soluble contrast enema via CT could guarantee its detection.

Three-stage versus modified two-stage surgery for ulcerative colitis: a patient-centred treatment trade-off study.

AIM: There is ongoing debate about whether ileal pouch-anal anastomosis needs temporary diversion at the time of construction. Stomas may reduce risk for anastomotic leak (AL) but are also associated with complications, emergency department visits and readmissions. This treatment trade-off study aims to measure patients' preferences by assessing the absolute risk of AL and pouch failure (PF) they are willing to accept to avoid a diverting ileostomy. METHODS: Fifty-two patients with ulcerative colitis, with or without previous pouch surgery, from Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, participated in this study. Standardized interviews were conducted using the treatment trade-off threshold technique. An online anonymous survey was used to collect patient demographics. We measured the absolute increased risk in AL and PF that patients would accept to undergo modified two-stage surgery as opposed to traditional three-stage surgery. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients (mean age 38.7 ± 15.3) with previous surgery and 20 patients (mean age 39.5 ± 11.9) with no previous surgery participated. Patients were willing to accept an absolute increased leak rate of 5% (interquartile range 4.5%-15%) to avoid a diverting ileostomy. Similarly, patients were willing to accept an absolute increased PF rate of 5% (interquartile range 2.5%-10%). Younger patients, aged 21-29, had lower tolerance for PF, accepting an absolute increase of only 2% versus 5% for patients older than 30 (P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Patients were willing to accept a 5% increased AL rate or PF rate to avoid a temporary diverting ileostomy. This should be taken into consideration when deciding between modified two- and three-stage pouch procedures.

SafeHeal Colovac Colorectal Anastomosis Protection Device evaluation (SAFE-2) pivotal study: an international randomized controlled study to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the Colovac Colorectal Anastomosis Protection Device.

AIM: Although proximal faecal diversion is standard of care to protect patients with high-risk colorectal anastomoses against septic complications of anastomotic leakage, it is associated with significant morbidity. The Colovac device (CD) is an intraluminal bypass device intended to avoid stoma creation in patients undergoing low anterior resection. A preliminary study (SAFE-1) completed in three European centres demonstrated 100% protection of colorectal anastomoses in 15 patients, as evidenced by the absence of faeces below the CD. This phase III trial (SAFE-2) aims to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the CD in a larger cohort of patients undergoing curative rectal cancer resection. METHODS: SAFE-2 is a pivotal, multicentre, prospective, open-label, randomized, controlled trial. Patients will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either the CD arm or the diverting loop ileostomy arm, with a recruitment target of 342 patients. The co-primary endpoints are the occurrence of major postoperative complications within 12 months of index surgery and the effectiveness of the CD in reducing stoma creation rates. Data regarding quality of life and patient's acceptance and tolerance of the device will be collected. DISCUSSION: SAFE-2 is a multicentre randomized, control trial assessing the efficacy and the safety of the CD in protecting low colorectal anastomoses created during oncological resection relative to standard diverting loop ileostomy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05010850.

Primary anastomosis with diverting loop ileostomy vs. Hartmann's procedure for acute diverticulitis: what happens after discharge? Results of a nationwide analysis.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend resection with primary anastomosis with diverting loop ileostomy over Hartmann's procedure if deemed safe for acute diverticulitis. The primary objective of the current study was to compare the utilization of these strategies and describe nationwide ostomy closure patterns and readmission outcomes within 1 year of discharge. METHODS: This was a retrospective, population-based, cohort study of United States Hospitals reporting to the Nationwide Readmissions Database from January 2011 to December 2019. There were 35,774 patients identified undergoing non-elective primary anastomosis with diverting loop ileostomy or Hartmann's procedure for acute diverticulitis. Rates of ostomy closure, unplanned readmissions, and complications were compared. Cox proportional hazards and logistic regression models were used to control for patient and hospital-level confounders as well as severity of disease. RESULTS: Of the 35,774 patients identified, 93.5% underwent Hartmann's procedure. Half (47.2%) were aged 46-65 years, 50.8% female, 41.2% publicly insured, and 91.7% underwent open surgery. Primary anastomosis was associated with higher rates of 1-year ostomy closure (83.6% vs. 53.4%, p < 0.001) and shorter time-to-closure [median 72 days (Interquartile range 49-103) vs. 115 (86-160); p < 0.001]. Primary anastomosis was associated with increased unplanned readmissions [Hazard Ratio = 2.83 (95% Confidence Interval 2.83-3.37); p < 0.001], but fewer complications upon stoma closure [Odds Ratio 0.51 (95% 0.42-0.63); p < 0.001]. There were no differences in complications between primary anastomosis and Hartmann's procedure during index admission [Odds Ratio = 1.13 (95% Confidence Interval 0.96-1.33); p = 0.137]. CONCLUSION: Patients who undergo primary anastomosis for acute diverticulitis are more likely to undergo ostomy reversal and experience fewer postoperative complications upon stoma reversal. These data support the current national guidelines that recommend primary anastomosis in appropriate cases of acute diverticulitis requiring operative treatment.

Outcomes comparison of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic and open surgery for patients undergoing rectal cancer resection with concurrent stoma creation.

BACKGROUND: Despite widespread adoption of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) in rectal cancer resection, there remains limited knowledge of its clinical advantage over laparoscopic (Lap) and open (OS) surgery. We aimed to compare clinical outcomes of RAS with Lap and OS for rectal cancer. METHODS: We identified all patients aged ≥ 18 years who had elective rectal cancer resection requiring temporary or permanent stoma formation from 1/2013 to 12/2020 from the PINC AI™ Healthcare Database. We completed multivariable logistic regression analysis accounting for hospital clustering to compare ileostomy formation between surgical approaches. Next, we built inverse probability of treatment-weighted analyses to compare outcomes for ileostomy and permanent colostomy separately. Outcomes included postoperative complications, in-hospital mortality, discharge to home, reoperation, and 30-day readmission. RESULTS: A total of 12,787 patients (OS: 5599 [43.8%]; Lap: 2872 [22.5%]; RAS: 4316 [33.7%]) underwent elective rectal cancer resection. Compared to OS, patients who had Lap (OR 1.29, p < 0.001) or RAS (OR 1.53, p < 0.001) were more likely to have an ileostomy rather than permanent colostomy. In those with ileostomy, RAS was associated with fewer ileus (OR 0.71, p < 0.001) and less bleeding (OR 0.50, p < 0.001) compared to Lap. In addition, RAS was associated with lower anastomotic leak (OR 0.25, p < 0.001), less bleeding (OR 0.51, p < 0.001), and fewer blood transfusions (OR 0.70, p = 0.022) when compared to OS. In those patients who had permanent colostomy formation, RAS was associated with fewer ileus (OR 0.72, p < 0.001), less bleeding (OR 0.78, p = 0.021), lower 30-day reoperation (OR 0.49, p < 0.001), and higher discharge to home (OR 1.26, p = 0.013) than Lap, as well as OS. CONCLUSION: Rectal cancer patients treated with RAS were more likely to have an ileostomy rather than a permanent colostomy and more enhanced recovery compared to Lap and OS.

Optimizing stoma closure: A laparoscopic technique yielding the least contamination.

In this study, we introduce a novel method for stoma closure, aiming to reduce wound infection rates. This method involves creating the common channel of both limbs of a loop stoma extracorporeally, which is particularly beneficial during laparoscopic stoma closure surgery by potentially avoiding contamination of the wound. We applied this technique in 23 patients undergoing laparoscopic stoma reversal surgery, comprising both loop colostomy and ileostomy cases. Notably, postoperative outcomes were promising: only two patients experienced postoperative ileus, and importantly, there were no instances of wound infection. These findings suggest that our laparoscopic stoma reversal surgery approach is not only safe and feasible but also offers a significant advantage in reducing wound infection rates.

Purse-string skin closure versus linear skin closure in people undergoing stoma reversal.

BACKGROUND: Stoma reversal is associated with a relatively high risk of surgical site infection (SSI), occurring in up to 40% of cases. This may be explained by the presence of microorganisms around the stoma site, and possible contamination with the intestinal contents during the open-end manipulation of the bowel, making the stoma closure site a clean-contaminated wound. The conventional technique for stoma reversal is linear skin closure (LSC). The purse-string skin closure (PSSC) technique (circumferential skin approximation) creates a small opening in the centre of the wound, enabling free drainage of contaminants and serous fluid. This could decrease the risk of SSI compared with LSC. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of purse-string skin closure compared with linear skin closure in people undergoing stoma reversal. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases, and three trials registers on 21 December 2022. We also checked references, searched for citations, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PSSC and LSC techniques in people undergoing closure of stoma (loop ileostomy, end ileostomy, loop colostomy, or end colostomy) created for any indication. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected eligible studies, extracted data, evaluated the methodological quality of the included studies, and conducted the analyses. The most clinically relevant outcomes were SSI, participant satisfaction, incisional hernia, and operative time. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, each with its corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: Nine RCTs involving 757 participants were eligible for inclusion. Eight studies recruited only adults (aged 18 years and older), and one study included people aged 12 years and older. The participants underwent elective reversal of either ileostomy (82%) or colostomy (18%). We considered all studies at high risk of performance and detection bias (lack of blinding) and four studies at unclear risk of selection bias related to random sequence generation. PSSC compared with LSC likely reduces the risk of SSI (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.29; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 757 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The anticipated absolute risk of SSI is 52 per 1000 people who have PSSC and 243 per 1000 people who have LSC. The likelihood of being very satisfied or satisfied with stoma closure may be higher amongst people who have PSSC compared with people who have LSC (100% vs 89%; OR 20.11, 95% CI 1.09 to 369.88; 2 studies, 122 participants; low-certainty evidence). The results of the analysis suggest that PSSC compared with LSC may have little or no effect on the risk of incisional hernia (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.70; I2 = 49%; 4 studies, 297 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and operative time (MD -2.67 minutes, 95% CI -8.56 to 3.22; I2 = 65%; 6 studies, 460 participants; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: PSSC compared with LSC likely reduces the risk of SSI in people undergoing reversal of stoma. People who have PSSC may be more satisfied with the result compared with people who have LSC. There may be little or no difference between the skin closure techniques in terms of incisional hernia and operative time, though the evidence for these two outcomes is very uncertain.

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.

Temporary diverting loop ileostomy in Crohn's disease surgery; indications and outcome.

INTRODUCTION: Crohn's disease can present with complex surgical pathologies, posing a significant risk of morbidity and mortality for patients. The implementation of a loop ileostomy for selected patients may help minimize associated risks. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we investigated the utilization of temporary fecal diversion through the creation of a loop ileostomy in Crohn's surgery. Closure of all ostomies involved a hand-sewn single-layer technique. We then conducted bivariate analysis on 30-day outcomes for closures, focusing on favorable recovery defined as the restoration of bowel continuity without the occurrence of two challenges in recovery: newly developed organ dysfunction or the necessity for reoperation. RESULTS: In total, 168 patients were included. The median age of the patients was 38 years (IQR 27-51). The most common indication for a loop ostomy was peritonitis (49%). After ileostomy closure, 163 patients (97%) achieved favorable recovery, while five encountered challenges; four (2.4%) underwent abdominal surgery, and one (0.6%) developed acute renal failure requiring dialysis. Two patients (1.2%) had a re-creation of ileostomy. Patients encountering challenges were older (56 [IQR 41-61] vs. 37 [IQR 27-50]; p 0.039) and more often required secondary intention wound healing (40% vs. 6.7%; p 0.049) and postoperative parenteral nutrition following their index surgery (83% vs. 26%; p 0.006). CONCLUSION: Selectively staging the Crohn's disease operations with a loop ileostomy is a reliable practice with low morbidity and high restoration rates of bowel continuity. Our hand-sewn single-layer technique proves effective in achieving successful surgical recovery.

Turnbull-Cutait pull-through coloanal anastomosis versus standard coloanal anastomosis plus diverting ileostomy for low anterior resection: a meta-analysis and systematic review.

PURPOSE: Coloanal anastomosis with loop diverting ileostomy (CAA) is an option for low anterior resection of the rectum, and Turnbull-Cutait coloanal anastomosis (TCA) regained popularity in the effort to offer patients a reconstructive option. In this context, we aimed to compare both techniques. METHODS: PubMed, Cochrane, and Scopus were searched for studies published until January 2024. Odds ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled with a random-effects model. Statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochran Q test and I2 statistics, with p-values inferior to 0.10 and I2 >25% considered significant. Statistical analysis was conducted in RStudio version 4.1.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing). Registered number CRD42024509963. RESULTS: One randomized controlled trial and nine observational studies were included, comprising 1,743 patients, of whom 899 (51.5%) were submitted to TCA and 844 (48.5%) to CAA. Most patients had rectal cancer (52.2%), followed by megacolon secondary to Chagas disease (32.5%). TCA was associated with increased colon ischemia (OR 3.54; 95% CI 1.13 to 11.14; p < 0.031; I2 = 0%). There were no differences in postoperative complications classified as Clavien-Dindo ≥ IIIb, anastomotic leak, pelvic abscess, intestinal obstruction, bleeding, permanent stoma, or anastomotic stricture. In subgroup analysis of patients with cancer, TCA was associated with a reduction in anastomotic leak (OR 0.55; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.97 p = 0.04; I2 = 34%). CONCLUSION: TCA was associated with a decrease in anastomotic leak rate in subgroups analysis of patients with cancer.

Stoma associated complications after diverting loop ileostomy, end ileostomy or split stoma formation after right sided colectomy-a retrospective cohort study (StoComSplit Analysis).

BACKGROUND: For high-risk patients receiving right-sided colectomy, stoma formation is a safety strategy. Options are anastomosis with loop ileostomy, end ileostomy, or split stoma. The aim is to compare the outcome of these three options. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included all patients who underwent right sided colectomy and stoma formation between January 2008 and December 2021 at two tertial referral centers in Switzerland. The primary outcome was the stoma associated complication rate within one year. RESULTS: A total of 116 patients were included. A total of 20 patients (17%) underwent primary anastomosis with loop ileostomy (PA group), 29 (25%) received an end ileostomy (ES group) and 67 (58%) received a split stoma (SS group). Stoma associated complication rate was 43% (n = 21) in PA and in ES group and 50% (n = 34) in SS group (n.s.). A total of 30% (n = 6) of patients in PA group needed reoperations, whereas 59% (n = 17) in ES and 58% (n = 39) in SS group had reoperations (P = 0.07). Wound infections occurred in 15% (n = 3) in PA, in 10% (n = 3) in ES, and in 30% (n = 20) in SS group (P = 0.08). A total of 13 patients (65%) in PA, 7 (24%) in ES, and 29 (43%) in SS group achieved stoma closure (P = 0.02). A total of 5 patients (38%) in PA group, 2 (15%) in ES, and 22 patients (67%) in SS group had a stoma-associated rehospitalization (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Primary anastomosis and loop ileostomy may be an option for selected patients. Patients with end ileostomies have fewer stoma-related readmissions than those with a split stoma, but they have a lower rate of stoma closure. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial not registered.

Short-term outcomes of the "minimal skin incision and no stoma" procedure in needlescopic intersphincteric resection and delayed coloanal anastomosis for low rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Needlescopic surgery is a minimally invasive procedure that uses thin trocars with 3-mm diameter. We used Turnbull-Cutait pull-through and delayed coloanal anastomosis in needlescopic surgery to avoid diverting ileostomy during intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer. In this study, we aim to assess the diverting ileostomy avoidance rate and technical safety of this "minimal skin incision and no stoma" procedure. METHODS: This single-center retrospective study was conducted at the Cancer Institute Hospital, a tertiary referral center in Japan. Between January 2017 and December 2020, 11 patients underwent needlescopic intersphincteric resection with diverting ileostomy (NSI group), and 19 patients underwent needlescopic intersphincteric resection with delayed coloanal anastomosis (NSD group) for low rectal cancer. Data regarding patient backgrounds and short-term outcomes, including diverting ileostomy avoidance rate, pathological results, and postoperative defecatory function, were compared between the groups. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between the NSI and NSD groups with respect to patient background, operation time (239 min versus 220 min, p = 0.68), estimated blood loss (45 g versus 25 g, p = 0.29), R0 resection rate (100% versus 100%, p = 1.00), and length of postoperative hospital stay (16 days versus 17 days, p = 0.42). The diverting ileostomy avoidance rate was 94.4% in the NSD group. The LARS and Wexner scores 12 months after surgery were not significantly different between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Needlescopic intersphincteric resection and delayed coloanal anastomosis can be safely performed in selected patients with a high rate of diverting ileostomy avoidance and comparable short-term outcomes.

Ileocecal valve-preservation ileocecostomy (IVPI) in infants with extremely short distal ileum after primary stoma.

PURPOSE: Preserving the ileocecal valve (ICV) has shown significant benefits. We present our experience with 18 infants who underwent ileocecal valve-preservation ileocecostomy (IVPI) with an extremely short distal ileum after primary ileostomy. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted on IVPI cases between 2014 and 2020. Medical records were reviewed, including birth weight, age, primary diseases, length of ileus stump, surgical time and procedure, time to enteral feeding, postoperative hospital stay, and complications. RESULTS: Eighteen patients (male: female = 12:6, median birth weight 1305 (750-4000) g, median gestational age 29 + 5 (27 + 6-39 + 6) weeks) were included in the analysis. Causes of surgery included necrotizing enterocolitis (13), ileocecal intestinal atresia (1), ileum volvulus (2), meconium peritonitis (1), and secondary intestinal fistula (1). The median corrected age of ileostomy closure was 3.2 months (2.0-8.0 months). The distance from the distal ileal stoma to the ICV ranged from 0.5 to 2 cm. The median length of the residual bowel was 90 cm (50-130 cm). ICV-plasty was performed in 3 cases due to secondary ICV occlusion or stenosis. All patients resumed feeding within 6 to 11 days after surgery. The postoperative hospital stay ranged from 12 to 108 days (median: 16.5 days). Complications included incisional infections in 2 cases, anastomotic stricture and adhesive ileus in 1 case, nosocomial sepsis and septic shock in 1 case. All children showed normal growth and development during a 6-65 month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: IVPI is safe and feasible for infants with an extremely short distal ileal stump. ICV-plasty could be applicable for cases with ileocecal occlusion/stenosis.

Management of a Peristomal Abscess in a Patient With an Ileostomy: A Case Study.

BACKGROUND: Peristomal abscess (PA) is an uncommon but challenging peristomal skin complication. The initial treatment of the PA usually includes incision and drainage of the abscess, resulting in a peristomal wound. The presence of the wound makes it difficult to maintain a seal between the ostomy skin barrier and the peristomal skin resulting in frequent removal and application of the skin barrier to prevent leakage and allow for daily wound care. CASE: Ms T was a 52-year-old woman with an ileostomy resulting from a prior left hemicolectomy for colon cancer who developed a PA. Treatment of the PA was implemented, along with a modified 2-piece skin barrier that allowed access to the peristomal wound for daily dressing changes while maintaining a seal around the ostomy. CONCLUSION: The modified 2-piece skin barrier technique proved a successful treatment for the management of the PA without frequent changes of the ostomy pouching system.

Hand-sewn direct repair versus resection and hand-sewn anastomosis techniques for the reversal of diverting loop ileostomy after lower anterior rectal resection surgery: A randomized clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Several techniques have been proposed for the closure of loop ileostomy. This is the first study comparing bowel function and outcomes of two different hand-sewn surgical techniques used for the closure of diverting protective loop ileostomy. METHOD: In this prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial, 40 patients with a history of rectal cancer, low anterior resection, and diverting loop ileostomy who were candidates for ileostomy reversal were included and randomly assigned into two groups, hand-sewn direct repair of the ileal defect (group A) and resection and hand-sewn anastomosis of the ileum (group B). RESULTS: The mean age of patients was 56.42 and 52.10 years in groups A and B, respectively. Regarding early postoperative period, group A developed earlier first gas passage (1.68 vs. 2.25 days, p = 0.041) and stool passage (2.10 vs. 2.80 days, p = 0.032). Group A also revealed shorter operating time (83.68 vs. 89.50 min, p = 0.040) and hospital stay (4.73 vs. 6.80 days, p = 0.001). None of the participants in both groups developed signs of bowel obstruction during the early and late postoperative follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: Direct hand-sewn repair for the closure of diverting loop ileostomy is a safe technique with better postoperative bowel function, oral diet tolerance, and less hospital stay compared to resection and hand-sewn anastomosis of the ileum.

Does stoma modify compliance with enhanced recovery after surgery programs? Results of a cohort study.

PURPOSE: Few studies have focused on enhanced recovery programs (ERPs) in patients who have received a stoma after colorectal surgery. The objective of the study was to compare ERP compliant patients who have not received a stoma, those who received a colostomy, and those who received an ileostomy. METHODS: This study used data that had been prospectively collected as part of the ERP audit performed through the Groupe francophone de Réhabilitation Améliorée après Chirurgie [Francophone Group for Enhanced Recovery after Surgery] over a 4-year period. All patients who had undergone colorectal surgery were included and separated into three groups (no stoma, ileostomy, and colostomy). The primary outcome was ERP compliance, calculated through the use of 16 tracer items. RESULTS: Of the 422 recruited patients, 317 had not received a stoma (75.12%), 59 had an ileostomy (13.98%), and 46 had a colostomy (10.90%). ERP compliance was 73% in the non-stoma group, 66.6% in the ileostomy group, and 66% in the colostomy group (p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that patients from the ileostomy group had a higher risk of bowel preparation [OR = 9.1; 95% CI = 1.16-71.65] and of maintaining their urinary catheter [OR = 0.3; 95% CI = 0.14-0.81] than the group which did not receive a stoma. Patients from the colostomy group required significantly more drainage than those in the non-stoma group (OR = 4.3; 95% CI = 1.33-14.02). CONCLUSION: ERP is feasible in colorectal surgery in the context of stomas, but in case of ileostomy protecting a rectal surgery, the audit system must be adapted to the protocols in use in the departments.