Journey for patients following ileostomy creation is not straightforward.

BACKGROUND: An ileostomy is usually created to avert systemic sepsis in a patient with a tenuous anastomosis. However, what is often not reported are the numerous issues facing these patients subsequently, ranging from readmissions, non-reversal of the stoma, and complications from the closure. This study was performed to identify these issues among patients following creation of an ileostomy. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of consecutive patients who had an ileostomy created from January 2011 to December 2016 at two institutions. Statistical analysis was performed to identify risk factors associated with readmissions and ileostomy non-reversal. RESULTS: In total, 193 patients had an ileostomy created during the study period. Twenty-six (13.5%) patients developed stoma-related complications requiring readmission. The most common cause of readmission (9.3%) was due to dehydration and acute kidney injury secondary to high stoma output. One hundred thirty (67.4%) patients had their ileostomy reversed. On multivariate analysis, only stomas created during an ultra-low anterior resection were associated with reversal (OR 2.88 [95% CI, 1.24-6.68]; p = 0.014). Among the patients who underwent ileostomy reversal, seven (3.6%) patients developed complications from their ileostomy reversal. Four patients (2.1%) suffered from an anastomotic leak which required repeat surgical intervention with one mortality from the ensuing sepsis. CONCLUSION: Almost half of the patients who had an Ileostomy had an undesirable outcome, including readmissions, non-reversal, and post-operative complications following closure. Patients need to be properly counselled about the risks involved prior to the index operation.

The influence of diverting loop ileostomy vs. colostomy on postoperative morbidity in restorative anterior resection for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the morbidity of loop ileostomy (LI) and loop colostomy (LC) creation in restorative anterior resection for rectal cancer as well as the morbidity of their reversal. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE via Ovid, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched for records published from 1980 to 2017 by three independent researchers. The primary endpoint was overall morbidity after stoma creation and reversal. Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio (OR) was used to compare categorical variables. Clinical significance was evaluated using numbers needed to treat (NNT). RESULTS: Six studies (two randomized controlled trials and four observational studies) totaling 1063 patients (666 LI and 397 LC) were included in the meta-analysis. Overall morbidity rate after both stoma creation and closure was 15.6% in LI vs. 20.4% in LC [OR(95%CI) = 0.67 (0.29, 1.58); p = 0.36] [NNT(95%CI) = 21 (> 10.4 to benefit, > 2430.2 to harm)]. Morbidity rate after stoma creation was both statistically and clinically significantly lower after LI [18.2% vs. 30.6%; OR(95%CI) = 0.42 (0.25, 0.70); p = 0.001; NNT(95%CI) = 9 (4.7, 29.3)]. Dehydration rate was 3.1% (8/259) in LI vs. 0% (0/168) in LC. The difference was not statistically or clinically significant [OR(95%CI) = 3.00 (0.74, 12.22); p = 0.13; NNT (95%CI) = 33 (19.2, 101.9)]. Ileus rates after stoma closure were significantly higher in LI as compared to LC [5.2% vs. 1.7%; OR(95%CI) = 2.65 (1.13, 6.18); p = 0.02]. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis found no difference between LI and LC in overall morbidity after stoma creation and closure. Morbidity rates following the creation of LI were significantly decreased at the cost of a risk for dehydration.

[Intestinal stomas. Are they as simple as they seem?] / Enterostomías, ¿son tan simples como parecen?

OBJECTIVES: To examine the morbidity and mortality of the formation and closure of enterostomies. METHODS: Retrospective study between 2000-2014 of patients younger than 14 years old who underwent an enterostomy. We evaluated: surgical technique, underlying pathology, general and stoma complications, sex, age and weight at the time of formation. At the closure we evaluated: surgical technique, age, weight, hemoglobin, hematocrit and albumin, as well as complications. RESULTS: We performed 120 enterostomies in 114 patients: 69 (57.5%) colostomies, 43 (35.8%) ileostomies and 8 (6.7%) yeyunostomy. The most frequent causes were: anorectal malformation (45/69), necrotizing enterocolitis (24/43) and intestinal atresia (4/8) respectively. 39 (32.5%) complications related to the stoma (colostomy 21, Ileostomy 15, Yeyunostomy 3; p= 0.845), 11 (9.2%) required surgery (colostomy 8, Ileostomy 2, Yeyunostomy 1; p= 0.439), and 17 (14.2%) general complications (colostomy 9, Ileostomy 7, Yeyunostomy 1; p= 0.884). We found a higher rate of complications requiring surgery in loop enterostomy 8/38 (21.1%), separated 3/54 (5.3%) or double-barrel 0/25 (p= 0.007). We closed 96 (80%), presenting complications in 14; yeyunostomy 4/6 (66.7%), colostomies 5/59 (8.5%), ileostomies 5/31 (16.1%) (p= 0.001). Hematocrit and hemoglobin below age average, and albumin under normal values are associated with complications when closing enterostomies (p< 0.05). Six patients (25%) who didn't went to closure died as a result of the underlying pathology and 5 (20.8%) of other causes. CONCLUSION: The formation and closing of enterostomies remains a procedure with a high rate of complications. However, there are no clear risk factors, excepting the use of loop enterostomy and lower albumin, hemoglobin or hematocrit at the time of closure.

OBJETTIVO: Examinar la morbimortalidad de la realización y cierre de las enterostomías. MATERIAL Y METODOS: Estudio retrospectivo entre 2000-2014, de pacientes menores de 14 años a los que se les realizó una enterostomía. Evaluamos: técnica quirúrgica, patología base, complicaciones del estoma y generales, sexo, edad y peso al momento de la cirugía. Al cierre evaluamos: técnica quirúrgica, edad, peso, hemoglobina, hematocrito y albúmin, así como complicaciones. RESULTADOS: En 114 pacientes, realizamos 120 enterostomías: colostomías 69 (57,5%), ileostomías 43 (35,8%) y yeyunostomías 8 (6,7%); las causas más frecuentes para cada una: malformación ano-rectal (45/69), enterocolitis necrotizante (24/43) y atresia intestinal (4/8) respectivamente. Complicaciones relacionadas al estoma 39 (32,5%) (colostomía 21, ileostomía 15, yeyunostomía 3; p= 0,845), requirieron cirugía 11 (9,2%) (colostomía 8, ileostomía 2, yeyunostomía 1; p= 0,439), y complicaciones generales 17 (14,2%) (colostomía 9, ileostomía 7, yeyunostomía 1; p= 0,884). Encontrando mayor índice de complicaciones que requirieron cirugía en la enterostomía en asa 8/38 (21,1%), separada 3/54 (5,3%) o cañón 0/25 (p= 0,007). Cerramos 96 (80%), presentando complicaciones 14; yeyunostomías 4/6 (66,7%), colostomías 5/59 (8,5%), ileostomías 5/31 (16,1%) (p= 0,001). Se asocian a complicaciones del cierre hemoglobina y hematocrito por debajo de la media para la edad, y albúmina bajo valores normales (p< 0,05). De los pacientes no anastomosados, 6 (25%) fallecieron por patología base y 5 (20,8%) por otra causa. CONCLUSION: La elaboración y cierre de enterostomías sigue siendo un procedimiento con alto índice de complicaciones. Sin embargo, no existen factores de riesgo claros, a excepción del uso de la enterostomía en asa y de albúmina, hemoglobina y hematocrito bajos al cierre.

Results of construction of protective loop ileostomies and reversal surgery for colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Protective loop ileostomies in colorectal surgery are constructed to reduce morbidity and reinterventions related to the primary operation. However, ileostomies are associated with stoma-related morbidity and postoperative complications following reversal surgery. Dutch national data show increased use of loop ileostomies in colorectal surgery for cancer justifying an adequate assessment of its morbidity. This study was undertaken to investigate morbidity associated with protective loop ileostomies in colorectal surgery. METHODS: Retrospectively, 118 consecutive patients undergoing left-sided colonic or rectal resection with protective loop ileostomy were included. Primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary endpoints included total complication rate (including stoma-related morbidity), total reintervention risk, anastomotic leakage risk and total length of stay. RESULTS: No mortality was observed. Overall major complication, reintervention and anastomotic leakage risk for colorectal surgery were 20, 20 and 3.9%, respectively. Combined length of stay for stoma-related morbidity and reversal surgery was 12.7 days. The risk for stoma-related morbidity was 35%, and the risk for nonelective reversal was 12%. Closure rate (mean follow-up of 15 months) was 87% with a mean interval of 125 days. Reversal surgery was not correlated with mortality but with major complications (11%) and reintervention risk, anastomotic leakage risk (3.8%) and a mean length of stay of 9 days. CONCLUSION: Construction of loop ileostomies in left-sided colonic or rectal resection is associated with a low risk for anastomotic leakage at the expense of substantial stoma-related morbidity and morbidity related to reversal surgery. More accurate identification of colorectal cancer patients benefitting from protective loop ileostomy seems to be warranted.

Surgical Management of Toxic Megacolon.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Toxic megacolon carries still a substantial mortality and the decision when to per form emergent colectomy needs precise predictors outcome. METHODOLOGY: Thirty-two patients with toxic megacolon were identified from a computer database, and their clinical variables were analysed both univariate and multivariate analysis. RESULTS: 30-day mortality was 16%, being 17% for the patients with Clostridium difficile colitis and 13% for the patients with inflammatory bowel diseases. Diabetes, MPI class II, ASA classes 4-5, increase serum creatinine level, fever over 39 degrees, renal failure, gangrenous bowel and vasopressor requirement significantly associated with in univariate analysis, but only MPI class II and ASA classes 4-5 were independent predictors of mortality. Major complications occurred in 53% of the patients and they associated with respiratory failure, development of shock and vasopressor requirement. Surgical intensive care was needed by the patients who developed respiratory failure, shock or anaemia the hospital treatment was longer in patients with Clostridium difficile colitis. CONCLUSION: Development of signs of organ failures or shock are associated with poorer outcome in patients with toxic megacolon and the patients should be urgently operated, when these signs occur.

Morbidity and mortality of temporary diverting ileostomies in rectal cancer surgery.

INTRODUCTION: A temporary diverting ileostomy is frequently used to reduce the consequences of a distal anastomotic leakage after total mesorectal excision in rectal cancer surgery. This surgical technique is associated with high morbidity and a not negligible mortality. The aim of this study is to evaluate the morbidity and mortality rate associated with an ileostomy and its posterior closure. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Between 2001 and 2012, 96 patients with temporary diverting ileostomy were retrospectively analyzed. Morbidity and mortality were analyzed before and after the stoma closure. The studied variables included age, sex, comorbidities, time to bowel continuity restoration and adjuvant chemotherapy. RESULTS: In 5 patients the stoma was permanent and another 5 died. The morbidity and mortality rates associated with the stoma while it was present were 21 and 1% respectively. We performed a stoma closure in 86 patients, 57% of whom had previously received adjuvant therapy. There was no postoperative mortality after closure and the morbidity rate was 24%. The average time between initial surgery and restoration of intestinal continuity was 152.2 days. This interval was significantly higher in patients who had received adjuvant therapy. No statistically significant difference was found between the variables analyzed and complications. CONCLUSIONS: Diverting ileostomy is associated with low mortality and high morbidity rates before and after closure. Adjuvant chemotherapy significantly delays bowel continuity restoration, although in this study did not influence in the rate of complications.

Subspecialist emergency management of diverticulitis is associated with reduced mortality and fewer stomas.

AIM: The aim of the study was to compare outcomes for emergency management of diverticulitis before and after the creation of a regional subspecialist colorectal unit. METHOD: We retrieved data on all emergency admissions for diverticulitis from the regional surgical audit database and compared results before (January 1998 to August 2002) and after (August 2002 to December 2008) establishment of the subspecialist colorectal surgery unit in August 2002. Additional data were retrieved from electronic patient records. The primary outcome measures were mortality and rate of primary anastomosis following resection. RESULTS: There were 879 patients before and 1280 patients after subspecialization. Nonoperative management was undertaken in approximately 80% of cases. Total mortality fell from 3.3 to 1.5% (P = 0.008), attributable to reduced operative mortality (9.6 to 4.2%; P = 0.019). The primary anastomosis rate for all left colon resections increased from 50.3 to 77.9%; P < 0.0001. Stoma formation of any type fell from 46.6 to 27.7%; P < 0001). CONCLUSION: Emergency management of diverticulitis by subspecialist colorectal surgeons is associated with low overall and operative mortality whilst safely achieving high rates of primary anastomosis.

Retrospective analysis of protective stoma after low anterior resection for rectal cancer with total mesorectal excision: three-year follow-up results.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Anastomotic leakage is a complication of low anterior resection (LAR) for rectal cancer with total mesorectal excision (TME). This study evaluated the need for a protective stoma by a three-year follow-up. METHODOLOGY: A retrospective study of 56 LAR patients was conducted. Thirty patients (53.6%) had a protective stoma. C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin 6 (IL-6) and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) in peripheral blood on the first and third day after surgery were compared, in addition to short-term and later complications, long-term mortality and quality of life (QOL). RESULTS: There was significant difference between patients with and without a stoma in CRP, IL-6 on the third day after surgery (p<0.05). Anastomotic leakage occurred in two patients (6.7%) with a stoma and seven (26.9%) without (p=0.039). The incidence of leaks requiring re-operation was significantly lower with a stoma (p=0.012). After a mean follow-up of three years, there was no difference in long-term mortality, survival or scores on QOL questionnaires. CONCLUSIONS: A protective stoma can reduce the stress reaction, promote recovery of bowel function and reduce anastomotic leakage and re-operation rates in LAR for rectal cancer with TME. No significant difference was observed in long-term mortality or QOL.

Factors predicting stomal wound closure infection rates.

BACKGROUND: Stoma closure is associated with high wound infection rates. The aim of this study was to evaluate risk factors for infection rates in such wounds, with particular emphasis on assessing the importance of the stomal wound closure technique. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 142 patients who had undergone ileostomy or colostomy closure between 2002 and 2011 was performed. Postoperative outcome as measured by wound infection rate was recorded. Three different closure techniques were identified: primary closure (PC), primary closure with penrose drain (PCP) and purse-string circumferential wound approximation technique (PSC). Other factors such as age, sex, ASA score, type of prophylactic antibiotics used, diabetes, smoking and obesity were also analysed. All other techniques were excluded. RESULTS: Our series consisted of 142 stomal closures (90 ileostomy and 52 colostomy closures). The patients had a median age of 63.5 years with an interquartile range of 50.1-73.2 years. The overall wound infection rate was 10.7%. PC, PCP and PSC were associated with wound infection rates of 17.9, 10.5 and 3.6%, respectively. Compared to PSC, PC and PCP were associated with significantly higher wound infection rates (p = 0.027 and p = 0.068, respectively). Obesity was a significant risk factor for wound infection (p = 0.024). Use of triple-agent antibiotics prophylactically had a protective effect on the infection rate (p = 0.012). CONCLUSIONS: To reduce stomal wound closure infection rates, we recommend institution of closure techniques other than PC with or without a drain. Risk factors such as obesity should be addressed, and prophylactic triple antibiotics should be administered.

Focused preoperative patient stoma education, prior to ileostomy formation after anterior resection, contributes to a reduction in delayed discharge within the enhanced recovery programme.

PURPOSE: Stoma formation is a well-known cause for delayed discharge following colorectal surgery. This has been addressed by the enhanced recovery programme (ERP) preoperatively through stoma counselling sessions. These aim to promote independent stoma management post-operatively, thus expediting hospital discharge. We compared the numbers of patients with prolonged hospital stay secondary to delayed independent stoma management prior to and following the introduction of an enhanced recovery programme with preoperative stoma education. METHODS: Data collection on patients undergoing anterior resection with the formation of a loop ileostomy was carried out retrospectively prior to ERP (January 2006 to August 2008) and prospectively following the introduction of ERP (September 2008 to October 2010). Comparisons were made in patients with prolonged hospital stay (defined as hospital stay of more than 5 days) secondary to stoma management. RESULTS: Two hundred forty patients underwent elective anterior resection with the formation of a loop ileostomy, 120 prior ERP and 120 post-ERP. Average length of hospital stay was 14 days before ERP introduction, with a range of 7-25 days. The mean length of stay amongst the ERP patients was 8 days (p = 0.17), ranging from 3 to 17 days. Twenty-one patients in the pre-ERP group (17.5%) experienced postponed hospital discharge due to a delay in independent stoma management, compared to one patient experiencing such a delay after the introduction of ERP (0.8%, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Delayed discharge secondary to independent stoma management can be significantly reduced with preoperative stoma management teaching as part of an enhanced recovery programme.

Laparoscopic colorectal resection for cancer: effects of conversion on long-term oncologic outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The effects of conversion to open surgery during laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer on long-term oncologic outcomes still are unclear. METHODS: All 450 laparoscopic colorectal resections for cancer performed at a single center between 1994 and 2008 and included in a prospectively maintained database were considered. Patients who required conversion to open surgery (CONV) were matched 1:2 with laparoscopically completed cases (LAP) and 1:5 with open surgery cases (OPEN) for age, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, year of surgery, tumor location, and tumor stage. Fisher's exact, chi-square, and Wilcoxon tests were used as appropriate. Kaplan-Meier curves were compared to analyze survival. RESULTS: In this study, 31 CONV cases were independently compared with 62 LAP and 155 OPEN cases. Compared with the LAP and OPEN patients, the CONV patients were characterized by a numerically higher rate of preoperative comorbidity (61.3% vs LAP, 51.6; P = 0.4 and OPEN, 48.4%; P = 0.2), male gender (77.4% vs LAP, 59.7%; P = 0.09 and OPEN, 58.1%; P = 0.05), and a significantly higher mean body mass index (29.6 vs LAP, 26.8; P = 0.012 and OPEN, 28.8; P = 0.3). The pathologic tumor stage, location, and chemotherapy and radiotherapy rates were comparable among the groups. After a median follow-up period of 4.1, 4.2, and 4.6 years, the 5-year disease-free survival rate was significantly lower for the CONV patients (40.2%) than for the LAP (70.7%, P = 0.01) or the OPEN (63.3%, P = 0.04) patients. However, the 5-year cancer-specific survival rates were similar among the CONV (94.4%), LAP (86.1%, P = 0.36), and OPEN (84.9%, P = 0.14) patients. CONCLUSIONS: Conversion to open surgery does not affect oncologic outcomes, although CONV patients have increased comorbidity rates affecting long-term mortality.

Radical surgical treatment of the urinary bladder cancer in patients over the age of 60--our experiences.

The goal of the paper was the analysis of patients over the age of 60 suffering from the urinary bladder cancer that underwent radical surgical treatment of the urinary bladder and establishing urine derivation. In the 1972-2008 period 2405 patients with the urinary bladder cancer were treated, 296 (12.3%) of whom underwent radical surgical treatment. The average age was between 60 and 80 years--in 207 (70%) patients. In our patients there were 190 patients (91.6%) with transitional cell cancers. According to TNM classification, T3 stage in 92 (44.4%) patients and T2 stage in 85 (41%) patients were predominant in our study. According to histological criteria, the most common stage was G3 stage--in 151 (73%) patients. Radical cystectomy or combined with urethrectomy was performed in 178 (86%) patients. Unfortunately, in 12% of them (T3 and T4 stages) the inner iliac blood vessels were tied off due to a progressive cancer. The outer supravesical urine derivation (Bricker, U-tubing nephrostomy, and ureterocutaneostomy) was done in 163 (78.7%) patients. The inner derivation (Coffey, ureteroileosigmoidostomy, Mainz-Pouch II) was performed in 17 (8.2%) patients and neovesica (Hautmann, Studer) in 24 (11.5%)patients. There were 74 (35.7%) patients with early postoperative complications. Among them the most dominant were the surgical complications--in 28 (13.5%) patients and distant organ complications--in 22 (10.6%) patients. In 75 (36%)patients with negative nodes the survival rate was 55% after five years. In 73 (35%) patients with positive nodes the survival rate was 27% after five years.

Safety and efficacy of prophylactic resorbable biosynthetic mesh in loop-ileostomy reversal: a case-control study.

Loop ileostomy (LI) is a widely used temporary stoma technique. Reversal of LI is generally considered a minor and safe procedure, with very low short-term postoperative mortality and morbidity rates. Complications include incisional hernia (IH), carrying a high probability of surgical repair. Clinical measures to reduce the IH rate warrant consideration. Recent researches suggest the use of a prophylactic non-absorbable mesh to reduce IH rate; however, surgeons are reluctant to implant a permanent foreign material in contaminated operative fields, because of a higher risk of mesh-related complications, infection, seroma, and pain. The aim of the present study is to assess feasibility, potential benefits, and safety of a prophylactic biosynthetic mesh placed during LI reversal. From January 2016 to December 2018, 26 consecutive patients underwent LI reversal positioning a resorbable biosynthetic mesh in an on-lay position [mesh group (MG)]. The mesh used was a GORE BIO-A tissue reinforcement, a biosynthetic mesh composed of a bioabsorbable polyglycolide-trimethylene carbonate copolymer. The MG was matched with 58 patients [control group (CG)], undergoing LI reversal without mesh placement from January 2013 to December 2018. To detect IH, abdominal wall was studied according to clinical and ultrasonographic criteria. Primary endpoint was IH rate on LI site, at 6 and 12 months after stomal reversal. Secondary endpoints included incidence of wound events. Thirty-day morbidity was classified according to Clavien-Dindo score; mortality and length of hospital stay were also collected. Mean follow-up was 15.4 ± 2.3 months (range 12.4-22.0) for MG vs 37.2 ± 26.9 (range 24.9-49.7) for. CG. At 1 year of follow-up, IH rate was lower in MG (n = 1/26 [3.8%]) vs CG (n = 19/58 [32.7%]; P < 0.05). A clinically evident IH was less frequent in MG (n = 0 [0%]) vs CG (n = 13 [68%]; P < 0.05). A radiologic IH was less frequent in MG (n = 1 [3%]) vs CG (n = 6 [31%]; P < 0.05). Stoma site hernia was repaired in 9/19 patients (47%) in CG; no patient of MG has hernia repaired. Incarcerated IH was observed in one patient of CG. No postoperative mortality was reported. Overall postoperative morbidity showed no difference comparing MG and MG (n = 5 [17%] vs n = 15 [19%], respectively; P > 0.05). Surgical site infections (SSI) were treated with antibiotic therapy, no debridement was necessary. Seroma occurred in two patients, one for each group. No statistically significant difference for surgical outcomes was found between the two groups at 30 days. Early results of the present study suggest that an on-lay prophylactic placement of GORE BIO-A tissue reinforcement might lower IH rate at LI site. The procedure seems to be safe and effective, even long-term results and further studies are needed.

The morbidity surrounding reversal of defunctioning ileostomies: a systematic review of 48 studies including 6,107 cases.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Loop ileostomies are used currently in surgical practice to reduce the consequences of distal anastomotic failure following colorectal resection. It is often assumed that reversal of a loop ileostomy is a simple and safe procedure. However, many studies have demonstrated high morbidity rates following loop ileostomy closure. The aims of this systematic review were to examine all the existing evidence in the literature on morbidity and mortality following closure of loop ileostomy. METHOD: A literature search of Ovid, Embase, the Cochrane database, Google Scholar and Medline using Pubmed as the search engine was used to identify studies reporting on the morbidity of loop ileostomy closure (latest at June 15th 2008), was performed. Outcomes of interest included demographics, the details regarding the original indication for operation, operative and hospital-related outcomes, post-operative bowel-related complications, and other surgical and medical complications. RESULTS: Forty-eight studies from 18 countries satisfied the inclusion criteria. Outcomes of a total of 6,107 patients were analysed. Overall morbidity following closure of loop ileostomy was found to be 17.3% with a mortality rate of 0.4%. 3.7% of patients required a laparotomy at the time of ileostomy closure. The most common post-operative complications included small bowel obstruction (7.2%) and wound sepsis (5.0%). CONCLUSION: The consequences of anastomotic leakage following colorectal resection are severe. However, the consequences of stoma reversal are often underestimated. Surgeons should adopt a selective strategy regarding the use of defunctioning ileostomy, and counsel patients further prior to the original surgery. In this way, patients at low risk may be spared the morbidity of stoma reversal.

Morbidity and mortality after closure of loop ileostomy.

BACKGROUND: A temporary loop ileostomy is commonly used to protect low pelvic anastomoses. Closure is associated with morbidity and mortality. This study investigated patterns of complications after loop ileostomy closure and factors associated with morbidity and mortality. METHOD: A review was performed of patients who underwent loop ileostomy closure between 1999 and 2005. RESULTS: Three hundred and twenty-five patients underwent closure of loop ileostomy. Reasons for primary surgery were: anterior resection for cancer (n = 160, 49%), ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (n = 114, 35%), diverticular disease (n = 25, 8%), Crohn's colitis (n = 4, 1%) and other conditions (n = 22, 7%). Overall mortality was 2.5% (n = 8) and morbidity was 22.8% (n = 74). Thirty-two patients (10%) developed small bowel obstruction, of whom seven required operative intervention. Overall, the re-operation rate in this series was 28 patients (8.6%). Thirteen (4%) patients had an anastomotic leak of whom 12 patients had re-operation. Preoperative anaemia was significantly associated with leakage (Hb < 11 g/dl; n = 65, P = 0.033). The leakage rate was lower after a stapled anastomosis than a hand-sutured anastomosis (4/203 vs 9/122; P = 0.039). Hypo-albuminaemia (albumin < 34 g/l) was significantly associated with mortality (n = 46, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Loop ileostomy closure is associated with morbidity and mortality. Anaemia and hypo-albuminaemia may be associated with poor outcome.

Morbidity and quality of life after continent ileostomy in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Continent ileostomy (CI) after proctocolectomy is an alternative technique compared to an ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA). The question arises as to whether this technique is valuable. The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of the continent ileostomy, by patient follow-up satisfaction and quality of life assessment. METHOD: Twenty-eight patients with a continent ileostomy operated between 1996 and 2007 were compared with patients who received an IPAA or a conventional ileostomy. SF-36 and EORTC QLC-CR38 questionnaires and a specific continent ileostomy questionnaire were used to assess differences and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: The quality of life in patients with a CI is not significant better or worse than patients with either a conventional ileostomy or an IPAA. On three scales (sexual enjoyment, gastro-intestinal tract symptoms and male sexual problems) statistically significant differences were reported. Overall, nearly all patients are very satisfied with the CI. All patients would make the same decision again and would recommend this procedure to other patients. CONCLUSION: The continent ileostomy remains to be a suitable alternative for the preservation of continence after a proctocolectomy, especially when an ileal pouch-anal anastomosis is not an option. If a choice has to be made between a CI and conventional ileostomy good preoperative counselling is necessary to make a well founded decision. To minimize complications, these procedures have to be performed in centres with specific expertise. Therefore, knowledge about the CI should be preserved for the future.

The outcome of loop ileostomy closure: a prospective study.

BACKGROUND: The use of a loop ileostomy is an effective method to protect pelvic anastomoses, although there is some debate as to the routine use of a stoma. A second operation is required to close the stoma, with potential complications. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess prospectively the morbidity of closure of loop ileostomy. METHOD: All patients scheduled for loop ileostomy closure over a 12-month period were included. The patient demographics, operative technique, complications and length of stay were recorded prospectively. RESULTS: Fifty consecutive patients (28 males and 22 females) with a median age (interquartile range, IQR) of 56 (42-73) years underwent closure of loop ileostomy, at a median time (IQR) of 29 (18-48) weeks after formation. Twelve patients (24%) developed complications: six (12%) had intestinal obstruction of which one required a laparotomy, four (8%) had wound infections of which one required re-operation, one (2%) had an ileal anastomotic leak and subsequently died and one (2%) died from a myocardial infarction. The median length (IQR) of hospital stay was 8 (7-10) days. CONCLUSION: We have demonstrated that a quarter of patients develop complications after loop ileostomy closure. The majority of these are minor. Methods to reduce the number of complications, such as optimum time for closure and distal limb irrigation techniques, need to be studied.

Surgical specimen extraction via a prophylactic ileostomy procedure: A minimally invasive technique for laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery.

AIM: To retrospectively evaluate the safety and feasibility of surgical specimen extraction via a prophylactic ileostomy procedure in patient with rectal cancer. METHODS: We systematically reviewed 331 consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic anterior resection for rectal cancer and prophylactic ileostomy in our institution from June 2010 to October 2016, including 155 patients who underwent specimen extraction via a prophylactic ileostomy procedure (experimental group), and 176 patients who underwent specimen extraction via a small lower abdominal incision (control group). Clinical data were collected from both groups and statistically analyzed. RESULTS: The two groups were matched in clinical characteristics and pathological outcomes. However, mean operative time was significantly shorter in the experimental group compared to the control group (161.3 ± 21.5 min vs 168.8 ± 20.5 min; P = 0.001). Mean estimated blood loss was significantly less in the experimental group (77.4 ± 30.7 mL vs 85.9 ± 35.5 mL; P = 0.020). The pain reported by patients during the first two days after surgery was significantly less in the experimental group than in the control group. No wound infections occurred in the experimental group, but 4.0% of the controls developed wound infections (P = 0.016). The estimated 5-year disease-free survival and overall survival rate were similar between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Surgical specimen extraction via a prophylactic ileostomy procedure represents a secure and feasible approach to laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery, and embodies the principle of minimally invasive surgery.

Ileostomy or colostomy for temporary decompression of colorectal anastomosis.

BACKGROUND: The use of loop ileostomy or loop transverse colostomy represents an important issue in colorectal surgery. Despite a slight preference for a loop ileostomy as a temporary stoma, the best form for temporary decompression of colorectal anastomosis still remains controversial. OBJECTIVES: To assess the evidence in the use of loop ileostomy compared with loop transverse colostomy for temporary decompression of colorectal anastomosis, comparing the safety and effectiveness. SEARCH STRATEGY: We identified randomised controlled trials from MEDLINE, EMBASE, Lilacs, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Further, by hand-searching relevant medical journals and proceedings from major gastroenterological congresses. We did not limit the seaches regarding date and language. SELECTION CRITERIA: We assessed all randomised clinical trials, that met the objectives and reported major outcomes: 1. Mortality; 2. Wound infection; 3. Time of formation of stoma; 4. Time of closure of stoma; 5. Time interval between formation and closure of stoma; 6. Stoma prolapse; 7. Stoma retraction; 8. Parastomal hernia; 9. Parastomal fistula; 10. Stenosis; 11. Necrosis; 12. Skin irritation; 13. Ileus; 14. Bowel leakage; 15. Reoperation; 16. Patient adaptation; 17. Length of hospital stay; 18. Colorectal anastomotic dehiscence; 19. Incisional hernia; 20. Postoperative bowel obstruction. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Details of the randomisation, blinding, whether an intention-to-treat analysis was done, and the number of patients lost to follow-up was recorded. For data analysis the relative risk and risk difference were used with corresponding 95% confidence interval; fixed effect was used for all outcomes unless incisional hernia (random effect model). Statistical heterogeneity in the results of the meta-analysis was assessed by inspection of graphical presentation (funnel plot) and by calculating a test of heterogeneity. MAIN RESULTS: Five trials were included with 334 patients: 168 to loop ileostomy group and 166 to loop transverse colostomy group. The continuous outcomes could not be measured because of the lack of the data. The outcomes stoma prolapse had statistical significant difference: p=0.00001, but with statistical heterogeneity, p=0,001. When the sensitive analysis was applied excluding the trials that included emergencies surgeries, the result had a discreet difference: p = 0.02 and Test for heterogeneity: chi-square = 0.78, df = 2, p = 0.68, I(2)=0%. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The best available evidence for decompression of colorectal anastomosis, either use of loop ileostomy or loop colostomy, could not be clarified from this review. So far, the results in terms of occurrence of postoperative stoma prolapse support the choice of loop ileostomy as a technique for fecal diversion for colorectal anastomosis, but large scale RCT's is needed to verify this.

Loop ileostomy versus total colectomy as surgical treatment for Clostridium difficile-associated disease: An Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma multicenter trial.

OBJECTIVES: The mortality of patients with Clostridium difficile-associated disease (CDAD) requiring surgery continues to be very high. Loop ileostomy (LI) was introduced as an alternative procedure to total colectomy (TC) for CDAD by a single-center study. To date, no reproducible results have been published. The objective of this study was to compare these two procedures in a multicentric approach to help the surgeon decide what procedure is best suited for the patient in need. METHODS: This was a retrospective multicenter study conducted under the sponsorship of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma. Demographics, medical history, clinical presentation, APACHE score, and outcomes were collected. We used the Research Electronic Data Capture tool to store the data. Mann-Whitney (continuous data) and Fisher exact (categorical data) were used to compare TC with LI. Logistic regression was performed to determine predictors of mortality. A propensity score analysis was done to control for potential confounders and determine adjusted mortality rates by procedure type. RESULTS: We collected data from 10 centers of patients who presented with CDAD requiring surgery between July 1, 2010 and July 30, 2014. Two patients died during the surgical procedure, leaving 98 individuals in the study. The overall mortality was 32%, and 75% had postoperative complications. Median age was 64.5 years; 59% were male. Concerning preoperative patient conditions, 54% were on pressors, 47% had renal failure, and 36% had respiratory failure. When comparing TC and LI, there was no statistical difference regarding these conditions. Univariate preprocedure predictors of mortality were age, lactate, timing of operation, vasopressor use, and acute renal failure. There was no statistical difference between the APACHE score of patients undergoing either procedure (TC, 22 vs LI, 16). Adjusted mortality (controlled for preprocedure confounders) was significantly lower in the LI group (17.2% vs 39.7%; p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first multicenter study comparing TC with LI for the treatment of CDAD. In this study, LI carried less mortality than TC. In patients without contraindications, LI should be considered for the surgical treatment of CDAD. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, level III.