Outcomes of Early Versus Standard Closure of Diverting Ileostomy After Proctectomy: Meta-analysis and Meta-regression Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare outcomes of early and standard closure of diverting loop ileostomy (DLI) after proctectomy and determine risk factors for anastomotic leak (AL) and complications. BACKGROUND: Formation of DLI has been a routine practice after proctectomy to decrease the incidence and potential adverse sequela of AL. METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared outcomes of early versus standard closure of DLI after proctectomy. Main outcome measures were postoperative complications, AL, ileus, surgical site infection, reoperation, readmission, and hospital stay following DLI closure. RESULTS: Eleven RCTs (932 patients; 57% male) were included. Early closure group included 474 patients and standard closure 458 patients. Early closure was associated with higher odds of AL [odds ratio (OR): 2.315, P =0.013] and similar odds of complications (OR: 1.103, P =0.667), ileus (OR: 1.307, P =0.438), surgical site infection (OR: 1.668, P =0.079), reoperation (OR: 1.896, P =0.062), and readmission (OR: 3.431, P =0.206). Hospital stay was similar (weighted mean difference: 1.054, P =0.237). Early closure had higher odds of AL than standard closure when early closure was done ≤2 weeks (OR: 2.12, P =0.047) but not within 3 to 4 weeks (OR: 2.98, P =0.107). Factors significantly associated with complications after early closure were diabetes mellitus, smoking, and closure of DLI ≤2 weeks, whereas factors associated with AL were ≥ American Society of Anesthesiologists II classification and diabetes mellitus. CONCLUSIONS: Early closure of DLI after proctectomy has a higher risk of AL, particularly within 2 weeks of DLI formation. On the basis of this study, routine early ileostomy closure cannot be recommended.

Prevention of incisional hernia with retrorectus synthetic mesh versus biological mesh following loop ileostomy closure (Preloop trial).

BACKGROUND: The rate of incisional hernia after closure of a temporary loop ileostomy is significant. Synthetic meshes are still commonly avoided in contaminated wounds. The Preloop trial was a multicentre RCT designed to evaluate the benefits of synthetic mesh in incisional hernia prevention, and its safety for use in a contaminated surgical site compared with biological mesh. METHODS: Study patients who underwent closure of a loop ileostomy after anterior resection for rectal cancer were assigned to receive either retrorectus synthetic or biological mesh to prevent incisional hernia. The primary outcomes were surgical-site infections within 30 days, and clinical or radiological incisional hernia incidence at 10 months. Secondary outcomes were reoperation rate, operating time, duration of hospital stay, other complications within 30 days of surgery, 5-year quality of life measured by RAND-36, and incisional hernia incidence within 5 years of follow-up. RESULTS: Between November 2018 and September 2021, 102 patients were randomised, of whom 97 received the intended allocation. At 10-month follow-up, 90 patients had undergone clinical evaluation and 88 radiological evaluation. One patient in each group (2 per cent) had a clinical diagnosis of incisional hernia (P = 0.950) and one further patient in each group had a CT-confirmed incisional hernia (P = 0.949). The number of other complications, reoperation rate, operating time, and duration of hospital stay did not differ between the study groups. CONCLUSION: Synthetic mesh appeared comparable to biological mesh in efficacy and safety for incisional hernia prevention at the time of loop ileostomy closure. REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03445936 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Development and validation of a nomogram for preoperatively predicting permanent stoma after rectal cancer surgery with ileostomy: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: For patients with rectal cancer, the utilization of temporary ileostomy (TI) has proven effective in minimizing the occurrence of severe complications post-surgery, such as anastomotic leaks; however, some patients are unable to reverse in time or even develop a permanent stoma (PS). We aimed to determine the preoperative predictors associated with TS failure and develop and validate appropriate predictive models to improve patients' quality of life. METHODS: This research included 403 patients with rectal cancer who underwent temporary ileostomies between January 2017 and December 2021. All patients were randomly divided into either the developmental (70%) or validation (30%) group. The independent risk factors for PS were determined using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses. Subsequently, a nomogram was constructed, and the prediction probability was estimated by calculating the area under the curve (AUC) using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. A calibration plot was used to evaluate the nomogram calibration. RESULTS: Of the 403 enrolled patients, 282 were randomized into the developmental group, 121 into the validation group, and 58 (14.39%) had a PS. The development group consisted of 282 patients, of whom 39 (13.81%) had a PS. The validation group consisted of 121 patients, of whom, 19 (15.70%) had a PS; 37 related factors were analyzed in the study. Multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated significant associations between the occurrence of PS and various factors in this patient cohort, including tumor location (OR = 6.631, P = 0.005), tumor markers (OR = 2.309, P = 0.035), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score (OR = 4.784, P = 0.004), T4 stage (OR = 2.880, P = 0.036), lymph node metastasis (OR = 4.566, P = 0.001), and distant metastasis (OR = 4.478, P = 0.036). Furthermore, a preoperative nomogram was constructed based on these data and subsequently validated in an independent validation group. CONCLUSION: We identified six independent preoperative risk factors associated with PS following rectal cancer resection and developed a validated nomogram with an area under the ROC curve of 0.7758, which can assist surgeons in formulating better surgical options, such as colostomy, for patients at high risk of PS.

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 ).

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

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

Loop Ileostomy Closure as a 23-Hour Stay Procedure With Preoperative Efferent Limb Enteral Stimulation: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Loop ileostomy closure is a common procedure in colorectal surgery. Often seen as a simple operation associated with a low complication rate, it still leads to lengthy hospitalizations. Reducing postoperative complications and ileus rates could lead to a shorter length of stay and even ambulatory surgery. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the safety and feasibility of ileostomy closure performed in a 23-hour hospitalization setting using a standardized enhanced recovery pathway. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. SETTINGS: Two high-volume colorectal surgery centers. PATIENTS: Healthy adults undergoing elective ileostomy closure from July 2019 to January 2022. INTERVENTION: All patients were enrolled in a standardized enhanced recovery pathway specific to ileostomy closure, including daily irrigation of efferent limb with a nutritional formula for 7 days before surgery. Patients were randomly allocated to either conventional hospitalization (n = 23) or a 23-hour stay (n = 24). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was total length of stay and secondary outcomes were 30-day rates of readmission, postoperative ileus, surgical site infections, and postoperative morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 47 patients were ultimately randomly allocated. Patients in the 23-hour hospitalization arm had a shorter median length of stay (1 vs 2 days, p = 0.02) and similar rates of readmission (4% vs 13%, p = 0.35), postoperative ileus (none in both arms), surgical site infection (0% vs 4%, p = 0.49), postoperative morbidity (21% vs 22%, p = 1.00), and mortality (none in both arms). LIMITATIONS: Due to coronavirus disease 2019, access to surgical beds was greatly limited, leading to a shift toward ambulatory surgery for ileostomy closure. The study was terminated early, which affected its statistical power. CONCLUSION: Loop ileostomy closures as 23-hour stay procedures are feasible and safe. Ileus rate might be reduced by preoperative intestinal stimulation with nutritional formula through the stoma's efferent limb, although specific randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm this association. See Video Abstract . CIERRE DE ILEOSTOMA EN ASA COMO PROCEDIMIENTO AMBULATORIO DE HORAS CON ESTMULO PREOPERATORIO ENTERAL EFERENTE ESTUDIO ALEATORIO CONTROLADO: ANTECEDENTES:El cierre de la ileostomía en asa es un procedimiento común en la cirugía colorrectal. A menudo vista como una operación simple asociada con bajas tasas de complicaciones, aún conduce a largas hospitalizaciones. La reducción de las complicaciones postoperatorias y las tasas de íleo podría conducir a una estadía hospitalaria más corta o incluso a una cirugía ambulatoria.OBJETIVOS:El presente estudio pretende evaluar la seguridad y la viabilidad del cierre de ileostomía realizadas en un entorno de hospitalización de 23 horas utilizando una vía de recuperación mejorada y estandarizada.DISEÑO:Estudio aleatorio controladoAJUSTES:Dos centros de cirugía colorrectal de gran volúmenPACIENTES:Adultos sanos sometidos a cierre electivo de ileostomía, desde Julio de 2019 hasta Enero de 2022.INTERVENCIÓN:Todos los pacientes fueron inscritos en una vía de recuperación mejorada y estandarizada específica para el cierre de la ileostomía, incluyendo la irrigación diaria de la extremidad eferente del intestino asociada a una fórmula nutricional durante 7 días previos a la cirugía. Los pacientes fueron asignados aleatoriamente en hospitalización convencional (n = 23) o a una estadía de 23 horas (n = 24).PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:El resultado primario fue la duración total de la estadía hospitalaria y los resultados secundarios fueron las tasas de reingreso a los 30 días, el íleo postoperatorio, las infecciones de la herida quirúrgica, la morbilidad y mortalidad postoperatorias.RESULTADOS:Finalmente fueron randomizados un total de 47 pacientes. Aquellos que se encontraban en el grupo de hospitalización de 23 horas tuvieron una estadía media más corta (1 día versus 2 días, p = 0,02) y tasas similares de reingreso (4% vs 13%, p = 0,35), de íleo postoperatorio (ninguno en ambos brazos), de infección del sitio quirúrgico (0 vs 4%, p = 0,49), de morbilidad postoperatoria (21% vs 22%, p > 0,99) y de mortalidad (ninguna en ambos brazos).LIMITACIONES:Debido a la pandemia SARS CoV-2, el acceso a las camas quirúrgicas fue muy limitado, lo que llevó a un cambio hacia la cirugía ambulatoria para el cierre de ileostomías. El estudio finalizó anticipadamente, lo que afectó su poder estadístico.CONCLUSIÓN:Los cierres de ileostomía en asa como procedimientos de estadía de 23 horas son factibles y seguros. La tasa de íleo podría reducirse mediante la estimulación intestinal preoperatoria a través de la rama eferente del estoma asociada a fórmulas nutricionales, por lo que se necesitan estudios randomizados específicos para confirmar esta asociación. (Traducción-Dr. Xavier Delgadillo ).

The Effect of a Temporary Stoma on Long-term Functional Outcomes Following Surgery for Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with rectal cancer may undergo surgical resection with or without a temporary stoma. OBJECTIVE: This study primarily aimed to compare long-term functional outcomes between patients with and without a temporary stoma after surgery for rectal cancer. The secondary aim was to investigate the effect of time to stoma reversal on functional outcomes. DESIGN: This was a multicenter, cross-sectional study. SETTINGS: This study was conducted at 7 Dutch hospitals. PATIENTS: Included were patients who had undergone rectal cancer surgery (2009-2015). Excluded were deceased patients, who were deceased, had a permanent stoma, or had intellectual disability. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Functional outcomes were measured using the Rome IV criteria for constipation and fecal incontinence and the low anterior resection syndrome score. RESULTS: Of 656 patients, 32% received a temporary ileostomy and 20% a temporary colostomy (86% response). Follow-up was at 56 (interquartile range, 38.5-79) months. Patients who had a temporary ileostomy experienced less constipation, more fecal incontinence, and more major low anterior resection syndrome than those without a temporary stoma. Patients who had a temporary colostomy experienced more major low anterior resection syndrome than those without a temporary stoma. A temporary ileostomy or colostomy was not associated with constipation or fecal incontinence after correction for confounding factors (eg, anastomotic height, anastomotic leakage, radiotherapy). Time to stoma reversal was not associated with constipation, fecal incontinence, or major low anterior resection syndrome. LIMITATIONS: Cross-sectional design. CONCLUSIONS: Although patients with a temporary ileostomy or colostomy have worse functional outcomes in the long term, it seems that the reason for creating a temporary stoma, rather than the stoma itself, underlies this phenomenon. Time to reversal of a temporary stoma does not influence functional outcomes. See Video Abstract . EL EFECTO DEL ESTOMA TEMPORAL SOBRE LOS RESULTADOS FUNCIONALES A LARGO PLAZO DESPUS DE LA CIRUGA POR CNCER DE RECTO: ANTECEDENTES:Los pacientes con cáncer de recto pueden someterse a resección quirúrgica con o sin un estoma temporal.OBJETIVO:El objetivo principal de este estudio fue comparar los resultados funcionales a largo plazo entre pacientes con y sin estoma temporal después de cirugía por cáncer de recto. El objetivo secundario fue investigar el efecto del tiempo transcurrido hasta la reversión del estoma sobre los resultados funcionales.DISEÑO:Este fue un estudio transversal multicéntrico.ESCENARIO:Este estudio se llevó a cabo en siete hospitales holandeses.PACIENTES:Se incluyeron pacientes sometidos a cirugía de cáncer de recto (2009-2015). Se excluyeron pacientes fallecidos, pacientes con estoma permanente o discapacidad intelectual.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Los resultados funcionales se midieron utilizando los criterios de Roma IV para el estreñimiento y la incontinencia fecal y la puntuación del síndrome de resección anterior baja (LARS).RESULTADOS:De 656 pacientes, el 32% recibió una ileostomía temporal y el 20% una colostomía temporal (respuesta del 86%). El seguimiento fue de 56.0 (RIQ 38.5-79.0) meses. Los pacientes a los que se les realizó una ileostomía temporal experimentaron menos estreñimiento, más incontinencia fecal y más LARS mayor que los pacientes sin un estoma temporal. Los pacientes que tuvieron una colostomía temporal experimentaron más LARS mayor que los pacientes sin un estoma temporal. Una ileostomía o colostomía temporal no se asoció con estreñimiento o incontinencia fecal después de la corrección de factores de confusión (p. ej., altura anastomótica, fuga anastomótica, radioterapia). El tiempo hasta la reversión del estoma no se asoció con estreñimiento, incontinencia fecal o LARS mayor.LIMITACIONES:El presente estudio está limitado por su diseño transversal.CONCLUSIONES:Aunque los pacientes con una ileostomía o colostomía temporal tienen peores resultados funcionales a largo plazo, parece que la razón para crear un estoma temporal, más que el estoma en sí, se asocia a este fenómeno. El tiempo hasta la reversión de un estoma temporal no influye en los resultados funcionales. (Traducción-Dr. Jorge Silva Velazco ).

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

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

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.

Clostridium difficile infection after stoma reversal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) has been described in the early post-operative phase after stoma reversal. This systematic review aimed to describe the incidence of CDI after stoma reversal and to identify pre-operative variables correlated with an increased risk of infection. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines in March 2024. Manuscripts were included if reported at least one patient with CDI-associated diarrhoea following stoma reversal (colostomy/ileostomy). The primary outcome of interest was the incidence of CDI; the secondary outcome was the comparison of clinical variables (age, sex, time to stoma reversal, neo-adjuvant and adjuvant therapies after index colorectal procedure) in CDI-positive versus CDI-negative patients. A meta-analysis was performed when at least three studies reported on those variables. RESULTS: Out of 43 eligible manuscripts, 1 randomized controlled trial and 10 retrospective studies were selected, including 17,857 patients (2.1% CDI). Overall, the mean age was 64.3 ± 11.6 years in the CDI group and 61.5 ± 12.6 years in the CDI-negative group (p = 0.51), with no significant difference in sex (p = 0.34). Univariable analyses documented that the mean time to stoma reversal was 53.9 ± 19.1 weeks in CDI patients and 39.8 ± 15.0 weeks in CDI-negative patients (p = 0.40) and a correlation between neo-adjuvant and adjuvant treatments with CDI (p < 0.001). A meta-analysis was performed for time to stoma reversal, age, sex, and neo-adjuvant therapies disclosing no significant differences for CDI (stoma delay, MD 11.59; 95%CI  24.32-1.13; age, MD 0.97; 95%CI 2.08-4.03; sex, OR1.11; 95%CI 0.88-1.41; neo-adjuvant, OR0.81; 95%CI 0.49-1.35). Meta-analysis including patients who underwent adjuvant therapy evidenced a higher risk of CDI (OR 2.88; 95%CI 1.01-8.17, p = 0.11). CONCLUSION: CDI occurs in approximately 2.1% of patients after stoma reversal. Although a trend of increased delay in stoma reversal and a correlation with chemotherapy were documented in CDI patients, the use of adjuvant therapy was the only possible risk factor documented on meta-analysis. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023484704.

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

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

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.

Effects of a perioperative educational pathway on ostomy self-care, level of independence and need for visiting nurse services: a comparative observational cohort study.

AIM: Most new ostomy patients are not able to manage ostomy self-care when they are discharged and rely on visiting nurse services for ostomy care. The aim of this study was to determine if a perioperative ostomy educational pathway increases the level of independence and decreases the need for visiting nurse services in new ostomy patients. METHOD: A prospective longitudinal study was conducted between July 2018 and February 2020. Patients who received a colostomy or ileostomy and were treated on the surgery ward were included. Patients who followed a perioperative ostomy educational pathway were compared to a historical control group. The primary outcome measure was the level of independence in ostomy care and the need for visiting nurse services. RESULTS: After discharge, 67.6% of patients in the intervention group (n = 244) were able to independently perform ostomy care and were therefore not relying on visiting nurse services, compared to 15.2% of the patients in the control group (n = 33). The need for visiting nurse services was higher in patients aged ≥70 years (OR 3.20, P < 0.001), those who did not attend the preoperative practice session (OR 3.02, P = 0.002), those with a history of transient ischaemic attack (OR 10.22, P = 0.045) and those with mild cognitive impairment (OR 28.98, P = 0.002). CONCLUSION: A perioperative ostomy educational pathway effectively increased the level of independence and decreased the need for visiting nurse services in new ostomy patients.

Postoperative outcomes and identification of risk factors for complications after emergency intestinal stoma surgery - a multicentre retrospective study.

AIM: Approximately 4000 patients in the UK have an emergency intestinal stoma formed each year. Stoma-related complications (SRCs) are heterogeneous but have previously been subcategorized into early or late SRCs, with early SRCs generally occurring within 30 days postoperatively. Early SRCs include skin excoriation, stoma necrosis and high output, while late SRCs include parastomal hernia, retraction and prolapse. There is a paucity of research on specific risk factors within the emergency cohort for development of SRCs. This paper aims to describe the incidence of SRCs after emergency intestinal surgery and to identify potential risk factors for SRCs within this cohort. METHOD: Consecutive patients undergoing emergency formation of an intestinal stoma (colostomy, ileostomy or jejunostomy) were identified prospectively from across three acute hospital sites over a 3-year period from the ELLSA (Emergency Laparotomy and Laparoscopic Scottish Audit) database. All patients were followed up for a minimum of 1 year. A multivariate logistic regression model was used to identify risk factors for early and late SRCs. RESULTS: A total of 455 patients were included (median follow-up 19 months, median age 64 years, male:female 0.52, 56.7% ileostomies). Early SRCs were experienced by 54.1% of patients, while 51% experienced late SRCs. A total of 219 patients (48.1%) had their stoma sited preoperatively. Risk factors for early SRCs included end ileostomy formation [OR 3.51 (2.24-5.49), p < 0.001], while preoperative stoma siting was found to be protective [OR 0.53 (0.35-0.83), p = 0.005]. Patient obesity [OR 3.11 (1.92-5.03), p < 0.001] and reoperation for complications following elective surgery [OR 4.18 (2.01-8.69), p < 0.001] were risk factors for late SRCs. CONCLUSION: Stoma-related complications after emergency surgery are common. Preoperative stoma siting is the only truly modifiable risk factor to reduce SRCs, and further research should be aimed at methods of improving the frequency and accuracy of this in the emergency setting.

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.

What is the rate of definitive stoma after subtotal colectomy for inflammatory bowel disease? A nationwide study of 1860 patients.

AIM: Some patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) require subtotal colectomy (STC) with ileostomy. The recent literature reports a significant number of patients who do not undergo subsequent surgery and are resigned to living with a definitive stoma. The aim of this work was to analyse the rate of definitive stoma and the cumulative incidence of secondary reconstructive surgery after STC for IBD in a large national cohort study. METHOD: A national retrospective study (2013-2021) was conducted on prospectively collected data from the French Medical Information System Database (PMSI). All patients undergoing STC in France were included. The association between definitive stoma and potential risk factors was studied using univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: A total of 1860 patients were included (age 45 ± 9 years; median follow-up 30 months). Of these, 77% (n = 1442) presented with ulcerative colitis. Mortality and morbidity at 90 days after STC were 5% (n = 100) and 47% (n = 868), respectively. Reconstructive surgery was identified in 1255 patients (67%) at a mean interval of 7 months from STC. Seveny-four per cent (n = 932) underwent a completion proctectomy with ileal pouch anal anastomosis and 26% (n = 323) an ileorectal anastomosis. Six hundred and five (33%) patients with a definitive stoma had an abdominoperineal resection (n = 114; 19%) or did not have any further surgical procedure (n = 491; 81%). Independent risk factors for definitive stoma identified in multivariate analysis were older age, Crohn's disease, colorectal neoplasia, postoperative complication after STC, laparotomy and a low-volume hospital. CONCLUSION: We found that 33% of patients undergoing STC with ileostomy for IBD had definitive stoma. Modifiable risk factors for definitive stoma were laparotomy and a low-volume hospital.

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

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

Better stoma care using the Stoma App: does it help? A first randomized double-blind clinical trial on the effect of mobile healthcare on quality of life in stoma patients.

BACKGROUND: Receiving a stoma significantly impacts patients' quality of life. Coping with this new situation can be difficult, which may result in a variety of physical and psychosocial problems. It is essential to provide adequate guidance to help patients cope with their stoma, as this positively influences self-efficacy in return. Higher self-efficacy reduces psychosocial problems increasing patient's quality of life. This study investigates whether a new mobile application, the Stoma App, improves quality of life. And if personalized guidance, timed support, and peer contact offered as an in-app surplus makes a difference. METHODS: A double-blind, randomized controlled trial was conducted between March 2021 and April 2023. Patients aged > 18 years undergoing ileostomy or colostomy surgery, in possession of a compatible smartphone were included. The intervention group received the full version of the app containing personalized and time guidance, peer support, and generic (non-personalized) stoma-related information. The control group received a restricted version with only generic information. Primary outcome was stoma quality of life. Secondary outcomes included psychological adaption, complications, re-admittance, reoperations, and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: The intervention version of the app was used by 96 patients and the control version by 112 patients. After correction for confounding, the intervention group reported a significant 3.1-point improvement in stoma-related quality of life one month postoperatively (p = 0.038). On secondary outcomes, no significant improvements could be retrieved of the intervention group. CONCLUSION: The Stoma App improves the quality of life of stoma patients. Peer support and personalized guidance are of significant importance in building self-efficacy. It is to be recommended to implement Stoma app-freely available software qualifying as a medical device-in standard stoma care pathways for the benefits of both patients and healthcare providers.

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

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

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

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