Meta-analysis: loop ileostomy versus colostomy to prevent complications of anterior resection for rectal cancer.

PURPOSE: Anastomotic leakage is a serious complication of colorectal cancer surgery, prolonging hospital stays and impacting patient prognosis. Preventive colostomy is required in patients at risk of anastomotic fistulas. However, it remains unclear whether the commonly used loop colostomy(LC) or loop ileostomy(LI) can reduce the complications of colorectal surgery. This study aims to compare perioperative morbidities associated with LC and LI following anterior rectal cancer resection, including LC and LI reversal. METHODS: In this meta-analysis, the Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for prospective cohort studies, retrospective cohort studies, and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on perioperative morbidity during stoma development and reversal up to July 2023, The meta-analysis included 10 trials with 2036 individuals (2 RCTs and 8 cohorts). RESULTS: No significant differences in morbidity, mortality, or stoma-related issues were found between the LI and LC groups after anterior resection surgery. However, patients in the LC group exhibited higher rates of stoma prolapse (RR: 0.39; 95%CI: 0.19-0.82; P = 0.01), retraction (RR: 0.45; 95%CI: 0.29-0.71; P < 0.01), surgical site infection (RR: 0.52; 95%CI: 0.27-1.00; P = 0.05) and incisional hernias (RR: 0.53; 95%CI: 0.32-0.89; P = 0.02) after stoma closure compared to those in the LI group. Conversely, the LI group showed higher rates of dehydration or electrolyte imbalances(RR: 2.98; 95%CI: 1.51-5.89; P < 0.01), high-output(RR: 6.17; 95%CI: 1.24-30.64; P = 0.03), and renal insufficiency post-surgery(RR: 2.51; 95%CI: 1.01-6.27; P = 0.05). CONCLUSION: Our study strongly recommends a preventive LI for anterior resection due to rectal cancer. However, ileostomy is more likely to result in dehydration, renal insufficiency, and intestinal obstruction. More multicenter RCTs are needed to corroborate this.

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.

High-output stoma is a risk factor for stoma outlet obstruction in defunctioning loop ileostomies after rectal cancer surgery.

PURPOSE: Defunctioning loop ileostomy has been reported to reduce symptomatic anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer surgery; however, stoma outlet obstruction (SOO) is a serious postileostomy complication. We, therefore, explored novel risk factors for SOO in defunctioning loop ileostomy after rectal cancer surgery. METHODS: This is a retrospective study that included 92 patients who underwent defunctioning loop ileostomy with rectal cancer surgery at our institution. Among them, 77 and 15 ileostomies were created at the right lower abdominal and umbilical sites, respectively. We defined the output volumeMAX as the maximum output volume the day before the onset of SOO or-for those without SOO-that was observed during hospitalization. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to evaluate risk factors for SOO. RESULTS: SOO was observed in 24 cases, and the median onset was 6 days postoperatively. The stoma output volume in the SOO group was consistently higher than that in the non-SOO group. In the multivariate analysis, the rectus abdominis thickness (p < 0.01) and output volumeMAX (p < 0.01) were independent risk factors for SOO. CONCLUSION: A high-output stoma may predict SOO in patients with defunctioning loop ileostomy for rectal cancer. Considering that SOO occurs even at umbilical sites with no rectus abdominis, a high-output stoma may trigger SOO primarily.

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

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

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.

Complications associated with loop ileostomy: analysis of risk factors.

BACKGROUND: Loop ileostomy is a common surgical procedure but is associated with complications such as outlet obstruction (OO), parastomal hernia (PH), and high-output stoma (HOS). This study aimed to identify risk factors for these complications, as well as their causal relationships. METHODS: The study included 188 consecutive patients who underwent loop ileostomy between April 2016 and September 2021. Clinical factors and postoperative stoma-related complications (OO, HOS, and PH) were analyzed retrospectively. Stoma-related factors were evaluated using specific measurements from computed tomography (CT) scans. The incidence, clinical course, and risk factors for the stoma-related complications were investigated. RESULTS: OO was diagnosed in 28 cases (15.7%), PH in 60 (32%), and HOS in 57 (31.8%). A small longitudinal stoma diameter at the rectus abdominis level on CT and a right-sided stoma were significantly associated with OO. Creation of an ileostomy for anastomotic leakage was independently associated with HOS. Higher body weight and a large longitudinal stoma diameter at the rectus abdominis level on CT were significantly associated with PH. There was a significant relationship between the occurrence of OO and HOS. However, the association between OO and PH was marginal. CONCLUSION: This study identified key risk factors for OO, HOS, and PH as complications of loop ileostomy and their causal relationships. Our findings provide insights that may guide the prevention and management of complications related to loop ileostomy.

Short-term outcome of diverting loop ileostomy reversals performed by residents: a retrospective cohort prognostic factor study.

AIM: The reversal of diverting loop ileostomy (DLI) is one of surgical trainees' first procedures. Complications of DLI reversal can cause life-threatening complications and increase patient morbidity. This study compared DLI reversals performed by surgical trainees with those by attending surgeons. METHOD: This retrospective cohort study was performed at a single primary care center on 300 patients undergoing DLI reversal. The primary outcome was morbidity, according to the Clavien-Dindo classification (CDC), with special attention paid to the surgeon's level of training. The secondary endpoint was postoperative intestinal motility dysfunction. RESULTS: Surgical trainees had significantly longer operation times (p < 0.001) than attending surgeons. Univariate analyses revealed no influence on the level of training for postoperative morbidity. First bowel movement later than 3 days after surgery was a significant risk factor for CDC [Formula: see text] 3 (OR, 4.348; 96% CI, 1670-11.321; p = 0.003). Independent risk factors for surgical site infections (SSIs) were an elevated BMI (OR, 1.162; 95% CI, 1.043-1.1294; p = 0.007) and a delayed bowel movement (OR, 3.973; 95% CI, 1.300-12.138; p = 0.015). For postoperative intestinal motility dysfunction, an independent risk factor was a primary malignant disease (OR, 1.980; 95% CI, 1.120-3.500; p = 0.019), and side-to-side stapled anastomosis was a protective factor (OR, 0.337; 95% CI 0.155-0.733; p = 0.006). CONCLUSION: Even though surgical trainees needed significantly more time to perform the surgery, the level of surgical training was not a risk factor for increased postoperative morbidity. Instead, delayed first bowel movement was predictive of SSI.

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

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

Laparoscopic vs. open loop ileostomy reversal: a meta-analysis of randomized and non-randomized studies.

PURPOSE: The present meta-analysis compares laparoscopic loop ileostomy reversal (LLIR) with open loop ileostomy reversal (OLIR) to evaluate the advantages of the laparoscopic technique compared to the traditional open technique in ileostomy reversal. METHODS: Primary endpoints were hospital stay and overall complications. Secondary endpoints were operative time, EBL, readmission, medical complications, surgical complications, reoperation, wound infection, anastomotic leak, intestinal obstruction, and cost of the procedures. The included studies were also divided based on the type of anastomotic approach: extracorporeal laparoscopic loop ileostomy reversal (ELLIR) and intracorporeal laparoscopic loop ileostomy reversal (ILLIR). RESULTS: In the analysis, 4 studies were included. Three hundred fifty-four patients were enrolled. As primary outcomes, a significant difference was found in hospital stay between the LLIR and OLIR groups (MD = -0.67, 95% CI -1.16 to -0.19, P = 0.007). The overall complications outcome resulted in favor of the LLIR group (RR = 0.64, 95% CI 0.43-0.95, P = 0.03). As secondary outcomes, the operative time was in favor of the OLIR group (MD = 19.18, 95% CI 10.20-28.16, P < 0.001). Surgical complications were lower in the LLIR group than in the OLIR group. No other differences between the secondary endpoints were found. Subgroup analysis showed a significant difference in hospital stay between the ILLIR and OLIR groups (MD = -0.92, 95% CI -1.55 to -0.30, P = 0.004). The overall complications outcome significantly favored the ILLIR group (RR = 0.38, 95% CI 0.15-0.96, P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis shows an advantage in terms of shorter post-operative hospitalization and reduction of complications of LLIR compared to OLIR. The sub-group analysis shows that performing an extracorporeal anastomosis exposes the same risks of the open technique.

Comparison of specimen extraction site and another site for protective loop ileostomy in laparoscopic low anterior rectal resection: a retrospective comparative study.

BACKGROUND: Protective loop ileostomy is commonly performed in laparoscopic low anterior rectal resection to prevent the serious complications of anastomotic fistula. It is usually created at the right lower quadrant of the abdomen and another wound is required for stoma. The study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of ileostomy at the specimen extraction site (SES) and another site (AS) beside the auxiliary incision. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 101 eligible patients with pathologically diagnosed adenocarcinoma of the rectum from January 2020 to December 2021 in the study center. According to whether the ileostomy was at the specimen extraction site, patients were divided into SES group (40 patients) and AS group (61 patients). Clinicopathological characteristics, the intraoperative details, and postoperative outcomes of the two groups were measured. RESULTS: Univariate analysis showed that the operative time was significantly shorter and the blood loss was significantly less in the SES group than in the AS group during laparoscopic low anterior rectal resection, the time to first flatus was significantly shorter, and the pain was significantly less in the SES group than in the AS group during ileostomy closure. The postoperative complications were similar in both groups. Multivariable analysis showed that ileostomy at the specimen extraction site was a significant factor influencing the operative time and blood loss of rectal resection, and influencing the pain and the time to first flatus during ileostomy closure. CONCLUSION: Compared to ileostomy at AS, protective loop ileostomy at SES was time-saving and less bleeding during laparoscopic low anterior rectal resection, and more quick to first flatus and less pain during stoma closure, and did not lead to more postoperative complications. The median incision of the lower abdomen and the left lower abdominal incision were both good sites for ileostomy.

Efficacy of a transanal drainage tube versus diverting stoma in protecting colorectal anastomosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Anastomotic leakage (AL) is the most fearsome complication in low rectal resection. The temporary diverting stoma (DS) is recommended to prevent AL, but it may cause relevant morbidity and needs a second surgical procedure to be closed. Therefore, the use of a transanal drainage tube (TDT) has been proposed as an alternative. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis concerning the peri-operative outcomes in patients undergoing elective anterior rectal resection (ARR) with TDT alone or DS alone. Six studies were meta-analyzed, including a total of 735 patients. The meta-analysis showed that the incidences of AL, surgery-related complications, infective complications, and 30-day reoperation after ARR with low colorectal or coloanal anastomosis did not differ significantly between patients undergoing positioning of TDT and those undergoing DS. Furthermore, overall complications were significantly rarer in patients undergoing TDT. A meta-analysis of the randomized control trial (RCT) and no-RCT subgroups did not detect any statistically significant differences in any outcomes. These results suggest that it might be reasonable to employ a TDT in place of a DS to protect low colorectal and coloanal anastomosis, with consequent considerable advantages in terms of the short- and long-term post-operative outcomes. However, more well-designed RCTs are needed to definitively assess this issue.

Complications of preventive loop ileostomy versus colostomy: a meta-analysis, trial sequential analysis, and systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Preventive colostomy is required for colorectal surgery, and the incidence of complications associated with ileostomy and colostomy remains controversial. This study aimed to compare the incidence of postoperative complications between ileostomy and colostomy procedures. METHODS: Data analysis was conducted on 30 studies, and meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA) were performed on five studies. The basic indicators, such as stoma prolapse, leak, wound infection, ileus, and a series of other indicators, were compared. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were observed with complications other than stoma prolapse. Meta-analysis and TSA showed that the incidence of ileostomy prolapse was lower than that of colostomy prolapse, and the difference was statistically significant. Apart from the four complications listed above, the general data analysis showed differences in incidence between the two groups. The incidence of skin irritation, parastomal hernia, dehydration, pneumonia, and urinary tract infections was higher with ileostomy than with colostomy. In contrast, the incidence of parastomal fistula, stenosis, hemorrhage, and enterocutaneous fistula was higher with colostomy than with ileostomy. CONCLUSIONS: There were differences in the incidence of ileostomy and colostomy complications in the selected studies, with a low incidence of ileostomy prolapse. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022303133.

Defunctioning stoma in anterior resection for rectal cancer does not impact anastomotic leakage: a national population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Anterior resection (AR) is considered the gold standard for curative cancer treatment in the middle and upper rectum. The goal of the sphincter-preserving procedure, such as AR, is vulnerable to anastomotic leak (AL) complications. Defunctioning stoma (DS) became the protective measure against AL. Often a defunctioning loop-ileostomy is used, which is associated with substantial morbidity. However, not much is known if the routine use of DS reduces the overall incidence of AL. METHODS: Elective patients subjected to AR in 2007-2009 and 2016-18 were recruited from the Swedish colorectal cancer registry (SCRCR). Patient characteristics, including DS status and occurrence of AL, were analyzed. In addition, independent risk factors for AL were investigated by multivariable regression. RESULTS: The statistical increase of DS from 71.6% in 2007-2009 to 76.7% in 2016-2018 did not impact the incidence of AL (9.2% and 8.2%), respectively. DLI was constructed in more than 35% of high-located tumors ≥ 11 cm from the anal verge. Multivariable analysis showed that male gender, ASA 3-4, BMI > 30 kg/m2, and neoadjuvant therapy were independent risk factors for AL. CONCLUSION: Routine DS did not decrease overall AL after AR. A selective decision algorithm for DS construction is needed to protect from AL and mitigate DS morbidities.

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

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

ILEOSTIM trial: a study protocol to evaluate the effectiveness of efferent loop stimulation before ileostomy reversal.

PURPOSE: A protective loop ileostomy is the most useful method to reduce sequelae in the event of an anastomotic leakage (AL) after rectal cancer surgery. However, it requires an additional stoma reversal surgery with its own potential complications. Postoperative ileus (POI) remains the most common complication after ileostomy reversal, which leads to an increase in morbidity, length of hospital stay (LOS) and overall healthcare costs. Several retrospective studies carried out in this field have concluded that there are insufficient evidence-based recommendations about the routine application of preoperative bowel stimulation in clinical practice. Here we discuss whether stimulation of the efferent limb before ileostomy reversal might reduce POI and improve postoperative outcomes. METHODS: This is a multicentre randomised controlled trial to determine whether mechanical stimulation of the efferent limb during the 2 weeks before the ileostomy reversal would help to reduce the development of POI after surgery. This study was registered on Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05302557). Stimulation will consist of infusing a solution of 500 ml of saline chloride solution mixed with a thickening agent (Resource©, Nestlé Health Science; 6.4 g sachet) into the distal limb of the ileostomy loop. This will be performed within the 2 weeks before ileostomy reversal, in an outpatient clinic under the supervision of a trained stoma nurse. CONCLUSION: The results of this study could provide some insights into the preoperative management of these patients.

Effect of transverse colostomy versus ileostomy in colorectal anastomosis on post-operative wound complications: A meta-analysis.

A meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the effect of colostomy or ileostomy on post-operative wound complications. The research was tested using Embase, PubMed and Cochrane Library databases. Included were randomized, controlled clinical trials (RCTs). A sensitivity analysis and a meta-analysis were carried out. The results indicated that there were no statistically significant differences in the reduction of wound infection between LC and LI. Out of 268 related studies, 5 publications were chosen and examined for compliance. Literature quality was evaluated throughout the trial. Studies with poor literature were excluded. The data were analysed with RevMan 5.3, and a decision was taken to analyse the data with either a stochastic or a fixed-effects model. There were no significant differences in the incidence of post-operative infection in patients with LC (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.34, 1.81; p = 0.57), and the incidence of post-operative anastomotic fistulae (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.30, 3.15; p = 0.97) was not significantly different from that with LI. These meta-analyses indicate that no significant reduction in the incidence of post-operative infections or anastomotic fistulae was observed by either LC or LI.

Overuse of Proximal Fecal Diversion in Colorectal Surgery.

Many surgeons tend to overuse proximal fecal diversion in the setting of colonic surgery. The decision to proximally divert an anastomosis should be made with careful consideration of the risks and benefits of proximal diversion. Proximal diversion does not decrease the rate of anastomotic leak, but it does decrease the severity of leaks. Anastomotic height for low pelvic anastomoses, hemodynamic instability, steroid use, male sex, obesity, malnutrition, smoking, and alcohol abuse increase the rate of anastomotic leak. Biologics, most immunosuppressive agents, unprepped colons, and radiation for rectal cancer do not contribute to increased rates of anastomotic leak. Proximal fecal diversion creates additional potential morbidity, higher rates of readmission, and need for a subsequent hospitalization and operation for reversal. Additionally, diverted patients have higher rates of anastomotic stricture and delayed recognition of chronic leaks. These downsides to diversion must be weighed with a patient's perceived ability to handle the physiologic stress and consequences of a severe leak if reoperation is required. When trying to determine which patients can handle a leak, the modified frailty index can help to objectively determine a patient's risk for increased rate of morbidity and failure to rescue in the event of a leak. While proximal diversion is still warranted in many cases, we find that certain clinical scenarios often lead to overuse of proximal diversion. The old surgical adage "If you are considering diverting, you should probably do it" should be tempered by an understanding of the risk and benefits of diversion.

[Prognostic factors of dehydration and renal damage in patients with formed preventive ileostomy during rectal resection for cancer]. / Prognosticheskie faktory degidratatsii i pochechnogo povrezhdeniya u patsientov so sformirovannoi preventivnoi ileostomoi pri rezektsii pryamoi kishki po povodu raka.

Despite the potential advantages of a preventive intestinal stoma after the formation of a low colon anastomosis during rectal resections, the formation of a preventive loop ileostomy is associated with a significant frequency of complications. OBJECTIVE: To determine the potential prognostic factors of complications associated with ileostomy dysfunction in patients who have undergone rectal resection for cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed patients over the age of 18 who underwent open and laparoscopic resection of the rectum with the formation of a preventive ileostomy from January 2015 to May 2022. To determine the influence of potential predictors on the frequency of complications associated with large ileostomy losses, a single-factor logistic regression analysis was used. Complications associated with large ileostomy losses were primarily water-electrolyte disorders, dehydration and acute renal failure, which required intensive therapy and re-hospitalization. RESULTS: Of the 120 patients included in the study, 26 (21.7%) suffered complications associated with large losses of fluid and electrolytes in the stoma. In this group of patients, at least one repeated emergency hospitalization to a medical institution was required (average value 1.6). Factors associated with ileostomy dysfunction in a single-factor analysis were: the presence of signs of intestinal obstruction (OR=2.6; p=0.047), the development of postoperative complications (OR=3; p=0.024), steroid use (OR=4.3; p=0.010), smoking (OR=4.8; p=0.017) the average amount of discharge from the stoma at discharge is more than 1000 ml/24 h (OR=3.2; p=0.016) and the need for Loperamide at the time of discharge (OR=2.8; p=0.032). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed an independent risk factor for complications leading to re-hospitalization: ileostomy losses at discharge ≥1000 ml/24 h (OR=3.3 (1.18-9.37); p=0.023). CONCLUSION: In our study, those patients whose ileostomy discharge exceeded 1000 ml/24 h at discharge were at increased risk of dehydration, hypokalemia, hypocalcemia, acute prerenal renal failure, which led to repeated hospitalization to correct these disorders, sometimes in the intensive care unit.

Short-stay compared to long-stay admissions for loop ileostomy reversals: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Short-stay admissions, with lengths of stay less than 24 h, are used for various surgeries without increasing adverse events. However, it is unclear if short-stay admissions would be safe for loop ileostomy reversals. This review aimed to compare outcomes between short (≤24 hours) and long (>24 hours) admissions for adults undergoing loop ileostomy reversals. METHODS: Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for studies comparing short- to long-stay admissions in adults undergoing loop ileostomy reversals. Meta-analyses were conducted for mortality, reoperation, readmission, and non-reoperative complications. Quality of evidence was assessed with grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluations (GRADE) guidelines. RESULTS: Four observational studies enrolling 24,628 patients were included. Moderate certainty evidence suggests there is no difference in readmissions between short- and long-stay admissions (relative risk (RR) 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.28, p 0.86). Low certainty evidence demonstrates that short stays may reduce non-reoperative complications (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.62, p < 0.01). Very low certainty evidence demonstrates that there is no difference in reoperations between short and long stays (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.26 to 5.04, p 0.87). CONCLUSIONS: Moderate certainty evidence demonstrates that there is no difference in readmission rates between short- and long-stay admissions for loop ileostomy reversals. Less robust evidence suggests equivalence in reoperations and a decrease in non-reoperative complications. Future prospective trials are required to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of short-stay admissions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=307381 Prospero (CRD42022307381), January 30, 2022.

Effects of fecal stream deprivation on human intestinal barrier after loop ileostomy.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Intestinal homeostasis is closely associated with the normal intestinal luminal physiological environment. Temporary loop ileostomy changes the intestinal structure and diverts the fecal stream, thereby disturbing the intestinal environment. This study aimed to clarify the changing situation of the human intestinal mucosa barrier in the absence of a fecal stream after loop ileostomy. METHODS: We obtained paired samples from the fed (fecal stream maintained) and unfed (no fecal stream) portions of the loop ileostomy and subjected these samples to RNA sequencing. We also determined transepithelial electrical resistance. The mucus layer thickness and content of MUC2, tight junction proteins, and common antimicrobial peptides in ileum mucosa were studied. RESULTS: Transcriptome data revealed that genes associated with enhancing the intestinal barrier function of the unfed ileum were significantly decreased and genes associated with immune defense response were significantly increased. The transepithelial electrical resistance was lower and the mucus layer thickness was thinner in the unfed ileal mucosa than in the fed ileum. The MUC2, Occludin, and zonula occludens 1 content was lower in the unfed ileum than in the fed ileum. α-Defensin 5, α-defensin 6, and lysozyme content was higher in the unfed ileum than in the enterally fed ileum. CONCLUSION: Intestinal barrier function is weakened after long-term fecal diversion, but antimicrobiota defense function is strengthened. Thus, the intestinal mucosa barrier adopts an alternative stable state during fecal diversion, which may explain the clinical paucity of cases of enterogenic infection caused by loop ileostomy.