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.

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.

Does one-stitch method of temporary ileostomy affect the stoma-related complications after laparoscopic low anterior resection in rectal cancer patients?

PURPOSE: This current study attempted to investigate whether one-stitch method (OM) of temporary ileostomy influenced the stoma-related complications after laparoscopic low anterior resection (LLAR). METHODS: We searched for eligible studies in four databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and CNKI from inception to July 20, 2023. Both surgical outcomes and stoma-related complications were compared between the OM group and the traditional method (TM) group. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was adopted for quality assessment. RevMan 5.4 was conducted for data analyzing. RESULTS: Totally 590 patients from six studies were enrolled in this study (272 patients in the OM group and 318 patients in the TM group). No significant difference was found in baseline information (P > 0.05). Patients in the OM group had shorter operative time in both the primary LLAR surgery (MD = - 17.73, 95%CI = - 25.65 to - 9.80, P < 0.01) and the stoma reversal surgery (MD = - 18.70, 95%CI = - 22.48 to -14.92, P < 0.01) than patients in the TM group. There was no significant difference in intraoperative blood loss of the primary LLAR surgery (MD = - 2.92, 95%CI = - 7.15 to 1.32, P = 0.18). Moreover, patients in the OM group had fewer stoma-related complications than patients in the TM group (OR = 0.55, 95%CI = 0.38 to 0.79, P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: The OM group had shorter operation time in both the primary LLAR surgery and the stoma reversal surgery than the TM group. Moreover, the OM group had less stoma-related complications.

Reversal Surgery for Split Stoma with Peristomal Incision is Associated with Improved Postoperative Outcome in Patients with Crohn's Disease.

BACKGROUND: Temporary stoma formation is common in Crohn's disease (CD), while stoma reversal is associated with postoperative morbidity. This study aimed to evaluate the postoperative outcomes of split stoma reversal, SSR (i.e., exteriorization of proximal and distal ends of the stoma through a small common opening) and end stoma closure, ESC (i.e., the proximal stump externalized, and distal end localized abdominally. METHODS: Patients with CD who underwent stoma reversal surgeries between January 2017 and December 2021 were included. Demographic, clinical, and postoperative data were collected and analyzed to evaluate outcomes of reversal surgery. RESULTS: A total of 255 patients who underwent stoma reversal surgeries met the inclusion criteria. SSR was superior to ESC in terms of operative time (80.0 vs. 120.0, p = 0.0004), intraoperative blood loss volume (20.0 vs. 100.0, p = 0.0002), incision length (3.0 vs. 15.0, p < 0.0001), surgical wound classification (0 vs. 8.3%, p = 0.04), postoperative hospital stay (7.0 vs. 9.0, p = 0.0007), hospital expense (45.6 vs. 54.2, p = 0.0003), and postoperative complications (23.8% vs. 44.3%, p = 0.0040). Although patients in the ESC group experienced more surgical recurrence than those in the SSR group (8.3% vs. 3.2%) during the follow-up, the Kaplan-Meier curve analysis revealed no statistical difference (p = 0.29). CONCLUSIONS: The split stoma can be recommended when stoma construction is indicated in patients with Crohn's disease.

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.

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.

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 ).

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.

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.

Rethinking postoperative care: same-day ileostomy closure discharge improves patient outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The evolution of enhanced recovery pathways (ERPs) in colon and rectal surgery has led to the development of same-day discharge (SDD) procedures for selected patients. Early discharge after diverting loop ileostomy (DLI) closure was first described in 2003. However, its widespread adoption remains limited, with SDD accounting for only 3.2% of all DLI closures in 2005-2006, according to the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database, and rising to just 4.1% by 2016. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of SDD DLI closure with those of DLI closure after the standard ERP. METHODS: A retrospective case-matched study compared 125 patients undergoing SDD DLI closure with 250 patients undergoing DLI closure after the standard ERP based on age (±1 year), sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, body mass index, surgery date (±2 months), underlying disease, and hospital site. The primary outcome was comparative 30-day complication rates. RESULTS: Patients in the traditional ERP group received more intraoperative fluids (1221.1 ± 416.6 vs 1039.0 ± 368.3 mL, P < .001) but had similar estimated blood loss. Ten patients (8%) in the SDD-ERP group failed SDD. The 30-day postoperative complication rate was significantly lower in the SDD group (14.8%) than the standard ERP group (25.7%, P = .025). This difference was primarily driven by a lower incidence of ileus in the SDD group (9.6% vs 14.8%, P = .034). There were no significant differences in readmission rate (9.6% of SDD-ERP vs 9.2% of standard ERP, P = .900) and reoperation rates (3.2% of SDD-ERP vs 2.4% of standard ERP, P = .650). CONCLUSION: SDD ileostomy closure is a safe, feasible, and effective procedure associated with fewer complications than the present study's standard ERP. This could represent a new standard of care. Further prospective trials are required to confirm the findings of this study.

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.

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.

Management of the Difficult Stoma.

Fecal ostomy creation is a commonly performed procedure with many indications. Better outcomes occur when preoperative patient education and stoma site marking are provided. Despite a seemingly simple operation, ostomy creation is often difficult and complications are common. Certain risk factors, particularly obesity, are strongly associated with stoma-related complications. The ability to optimize the ostomy and stoma in the operating room and to troubleshoot frequently encountered post-operative stoma-related issues are critical skills for surgeons and ostomy nurses alike.

Trends in the adoption of diverting loop ileostomy for acute complicated diverticulitis in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Acute complicated diverticulitis poses a substantial burden to individual patients and the health care system. A significant proportion of the cases necessitate emergency operations. The choice between Hartmann's procedure and primary anastomosis with diverting loop ileostomy remains controversial. METHODS: Using American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program patient user file data from 2012 to 2020, patients undergoing Hartmann's procedure and primary anastomosis with diverting loop ileostomy for nonelective sigmoidectomy for complicated diverticulitis were identified. Major adverse events, 30-day mortality, perioperative complications, operative duration, reoperation, and 30-day readmissions were assessed. RESULTS: Of 16,921 cases, 6.3% underwent primary anastomosis with diverting loop ileostomy, showing a rising trend from 5.3% in 2012 to 8.4% in 2020. Primary anastomosis with diverting loop ileostomy patients, compared to Hartmann's procedure, had similar demographics and fewer severe comorbidities. Primary anastomosis with diverting loop ileostomy exhibited lower rates of major adverse events (24.6% vs 29.3%, P = .001). After risk adjustment, primary anastomosis with diverting loop ileostomy had similar risks of major adverse events and 30-day mortality compared to Hartmann's procedure. While having lower odds of respiratory (adjusted odds ratio 0.61, 95% confidence interval 0.45-0.83) and infectious (adjusted odds ratio 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.66-0.93) complications, primary anastomosis with diverting loop ileostomy was associated with a 36-minute increment in operative duration and increased odds of 30-day readmission (adjusted odds ratio 1.30, 95% confidence interval 1.07-1.57) compared to Hartmann's procedure. CONCLUSION: Primary anastomosis with diverting loop ileostomy displayed comparable odds of major adverse events compared to Hartmann's procedure in acute complicated diverticulitis while mitigating infectious and respiratory complication risks. However, primary anastomosis with diverting loop ileostomy was associated with longer operative times and greater odds of 30-day readmission. Evolving guidelines and increasing primary anastomosis with diverting loop ileostomy use suggest a shift favoring primary anastomosis, especially in complicated diverticulitis. Future investigation of disparities in surgical approaches and patient outcomes is warranted to optimize acute diverticulitis care pathways.

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.

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.

Effect of Robotic Inferior Mesenteric Artery Ligation Level on Low Anterior Resection Syndrome in Rectum Cancer.

Background: Life expectancy of patients with rectal cancer is increasing day by day with innovative treatments. Low anterior resection syndrome (LARS), which disrupts the comfort of life in these patients, has become a serious problem. We aimed to evaluate the effect of high ligation (HL) and low ligation (LL) techniques on LARS in rectal cancer surgery performed with the robotic method. Materials and Methods: The data of patients diagnosed with mid-distal rectal cancer between 2016 and 2021 who underwent robotic low anterior resection by the same team in the same center with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy were retrospectively evaluated. Patients were divided into two groups as those who underwent HL and LL procedures. Preoperative, 8 weeks after neoadjuvant treatment, 3 and 12 months after ileostomy closure were evaluated. Results: A total of 84 patients (41 HL, 43 LL) were included in the study. There was no statistically significant difference between the demographic characteristics and pathology data of the patients. Although there was a decrease in LARS scores after neoadjuvant treatment, there was a statistically significant difference between the two groups at 3 and 12 months after ileostomy closure (P: .001, P: .015). Conclusions: In patients who underwent robotic low anterior resection, there is a statistically significant difference in the LARS score in the first 1 year with the LL technique compared with that of the HL technique, and the LL technique has superiority in reducing the development of LARS between the two oncologically indistinguishable methods.

Clinical application of the B-type sutured ileostomy in robotic-assisted low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a propensity score matching analysis.

Currently, there is no consensus on the position and method for temporary ileostomy in robotic-assisted low anterior resection for rectal cancer. Herein, this study introduced the B-type sutured ileostomy, a new temporary ileostomy technique, and compared it to the traditional one to assess its efficacy and safety. Between September 2020 and December 2022 in our centre, B-type sutured ileostomy was performed on 124 patients undergoing robotic-assisted low anterior resection for rectal cancer. A retrospective review of a prospectively collected database identified patients who underwent robotic-assisted low anterior resection for rectal cancer with a temporary ileostomy between January 2018 and December 2022. Patients who underwent B-type sutured ileostomy (B group) were matched in a 1:1 ratio with patients who underwent traditional ileostomy (Control group) using a propensity score based on age, sex, BMI, Comorbidity, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, and Prior abdominal surgery history. Surgical and postoperative outcomes, health status, and stoma closure data were analyzed for both groups. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier：NCT05915052.  The B group (n = 118) shows advantages compared to the Control group (n = 118) regarding total operation time (155.98 ± 21.63 min vs 168.92 ± 21.49 min, p = 0.001), postoperative body pain (81.92 ± 4.12 vs 78.41 ± 3.02, p = 0.001) and operation time of stoma closure (46.19 ± 11.30 min vs 57.88 ± 11.08 min, p = 0.025). The two groups had no other notable differences. The B-type sutured ileostomy is a safe and feasible option in robotic-assisted low anterior resection for rectal cancer. The B-type sutured ileostomy may offer advantages such as shorter overall surgical duration, lighter postoperative pain, and shorter second-stage ostomy incorporation surgery. However, attention should be directed towards the occurrence of stoma prolapse.