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.

Patient and surgeon preferences for early ileostomy closure following restorative proctectomy for rectal cancer: why aren't we doing it?

BACKGROUND: Early ileostomy closure (EIC), ≤ 2 weeks from creation, is a relatively new practice. Multiple studies have demonstrated that this approach is safe, feasible, and cost-effective. Despite the demonstrated benefits, this is neither routine practice, nor has it been studied, in North America. This study aimed to assess patient and surgeon perspectives about EIC. METHODS: A mixed-methods, cross-sectional study of patients and surgeons was performed. Rectal cancer survivors from a single institution who underwent restorative proctectomy with diverting loop ileostomy and subsequent closure within the last 5 years were contacted. North American surgeons with high rectal cancer volumes (> 20 cases/year) were included. Surveys (patients) and semi-structured interviews (surgeons) were conducted. Analysis employed descriptive statistics and thematic analysis, respectively. RESULTS: Forty-eight patients were surveyed (mean age 65.1 ± 11.8 years; 54.2% male). Stoma closure occurred after a median of 7.7 months (IQR 4.8-10.9) and 50.0% (24) found it "difficult" or "very difficult" to live with their stoma. Patients considered improvement in quality of life and quicker return to normal function the most important advantages of EIC, whereas the idea of two operations in two weeks being too taxing on the body was deemed the biggest disadvantage. Most patients (35, 72.9%) would have opted for EIC. Surgeon interviews (15) revealed 4 overarching themes: (1) there are many benefits to EIC; (2) specific patient characteristics would make EIC an appropriate option; (3) many barriers to implementing EIC exist; and (4) many logistical hurdles need to be addressed for successful implementation. Most surgeons (12, 80.0%) would "definitely want to participate" in a North American randomized-controlled trial (RCT) on EIC for rectal cancer patients. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing EIC poses many logistical challenges. Both patients and surgeons are interested in further exploring EIC and believe it warrants a North American RCT to motivate a change in practice.

Early Versus Routine Stoma Closure in Patients With Colorectal Resection: A Meta-Analysis of 7 Randomized Controlled Trials.

Background. A substantial proportion of patients undergoing colorectal surgery receive a temporary stoma, and the timing for stoma closure remains unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of early stoma closure (ESC) compared with routine stoma closure (RSC) after colorectal surgery. Methods. We comprehensively searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials that compared ESC and RSC after colorectal surgery. Results. A total of 7 randomized controlled trials with 814 enrolled patients were identified for this meta-analysis. There were no significant differences between the ESC and RSC groups regarding the complications of stoma closure (26.8% and 16.6%, respectively; odds ratio [OR]: 1.30; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.89-1.90; P = .17). A subgroup analysis was conducted by Clavien-Dindo grade of complication, and no significant difference was observed in any subgroup (P > .05). However, the ESC group had a significantly higher risk of wound complications than the RSC group (17.6% and 7.8%, respectively; OR: 2.61; 95% CI: 1.43-4.76; P = .002), and the RSC group had more cases of small bowel obstruction than the ESC group (3.1% and 8.4%, respectively; OR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.15-0.87; P = .02). Conclusions. ESC is a safe and effective therapeutic approach in patients who have undergone colorectal surgery; it is associated with a reduced risk of bowel obstruction but a higher risk of wound complications.

Outcome of stoma closure in babies with necrotising enterocolitis: early vs late closure.

Newborns undergoing surgery for necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) often require a stoma. Currently, there is no consensus regarding the best time for stoma closure (SC). Our aim was to determine the outcomes of early versus late closure. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of patients who underwent SC following stoma formation for NEC between Jan 2009 and July 2015 was done. Early (EC) versus late closure (LC) was defined as less than 10 weeks versus at or after 10 weeks of stoma formation. RESULTS: Of 36 patients, M:F was 23:13. Indications for laparotomy were pneumoperitoneum (30) and gangrene (6). Postoperatively, 9/15 (60.0%) of EC group required ventilator support versus none in LC group (p < 0.05). It took longer to establish full feeds following EC (12 days) versus LC (8 days). Median duration of postoperative hospital stay following EC was 31 days (18-35) versus 7 days (4-54) following LC. Three patients were re-operated for intestinal obstruction (two following EC, one following LC). Three patients developed incisional hernia after EC versus none after LC (p < 0.05). One patient died after EC due to staphylococcus septicaemia. CONCLUSION: Early closure before 10 weeks of formation for NEC patients is associated with significant morbidity, increased ventilator requirements and chances of developing incisional hernia.

Early versus conventional stoma closure following bowel surgery: A randomized controlled trial.

Background/Aim: To compare early stoma closure with conventional stoma closure following defunctioning diversion stoma surgery with respect to the frequency of complications, health-related quality of life (QoL), and length of hospitalization (LoH). Patients and Methods: This study was designed as a prospective parallel-arm randomized controlled trial. Patients who underwent temporary stoma following bowel surgery between February 2014 and November 2015 were included. The rate of complications (medical and surgical) following early and conventional stoma closure was assessed. Health-related QoL and LoH were also measured. Results: One hundred patients were included, with 50 cases in each group. Postoperative complications including laparostoma (6% vs. 2%;P = 0.307), wound infection (32% vs. 18%; P = 0.106), intra-abdominal collection (14% vs. 18%; P = 0.585), anastomotic leak (4%vs. 8%;P = 0.400), and medical complications were comparable (22% vs. 32%;P = 0.257). The length of hospital stay, overall mortality and morbidity (64% vs. 44%; P = 0.05) were similar across the two groups. There was a significant reduction in the cost towards stoma care (96% vs. 2%; P = 0.001) in the early stoma closure group. Patients in the early stoma closure group also had a significantly better QoL. Conclusion: Early stoma closure does not carry an increased risk of postoperative complications, reduces cost towards stoma care, and leads to better a QoL.