Ghost Ileostomy Versus Loop Ileostomy Following Oncologic Resection for Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare ghost ileostomy (GI) and loop ileostomy (LI) in patients undergoing oncologic resection for rectal cancer in terms of postoperative morbidity. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: LIs are often fashioned to protect downstream anastomoses following oncologic resection for low rectal cancer at medium-to-high risk of anastomotic leak. More recently, GIs have been utilized in patients with low-to-medium risk anastomoses to reduce the rate of unnecessary stomas. METHODS: Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL were systematically searched. Studies investigating the use of GI in patients undergoing oncologic resection for rectal cancer were included. The primary outcomes were anastomotic leak and postoperative morbidity. Secondary outcomes included stoma-related complications and length of stay (LOS). Pairwise meta-analyses were performed with inverse variance random effects. RESULTS: From 242 citations, 14 studies with 946 patients were included. In comparative studies, 359 patients were undergoing GI and 266 patients were undergoing LI. Pairwise meta-analysis revealed no differences in the prevalence of anastomotic leak (OR 1.40, 95%CI .73-2.68, P = .31), morbidity (OR .76, 95%CI .44-1.30, P = .32), or LOS (SMD -.05, 95%CI -.33-.23, P = .72). International Study Group of Rectal Cancer anastomotic leak grades were as follows: Grade A (GI 0% vs LI 13.3%), Grade B (GI 80.9% vs LI 86.7%), Grade C (GI 19.1% vs LI 0%). CONCLUSIONS: GI appears to be a safe alternative to LI following oncologic resection for rectal cancer. Larger, prospective comparative studies are warranted to evaluate the use of GI in patients deemed to be at low-to-medium risk of anastomotic leak.

Virtual ileostomy in elective colorectal surgery: a systematic review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Anastomotic leak (AL) following colorectal surgery can be a life-threatening complication. The use of a diverting stoma has been proposed, to prevent or reduce morbidity and mortality associated with AL. Stomas, however, have their own distinct complications. Thus, virtual ileostomy (VI) has been proposed as an alternative to diverting stoma. The aim of the present study was to further evaluate the role of VI through systematic review of existing literature. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and the Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. The primary endpoint of our study was the estimation of the overall VI complication rate. Secondary endpoints included the identification of the VI-specific adverse outcomes, perioperative endpoints such as the length of hospital stay, transfusion and postoperative leak rates, description of the operative variations of VI reported VI operative variations and details regarding the primary operation and previous neoadjuvant therapy. RESULTS: In total, 11 studies and 554 patients were included in this systematic review. Overall, 158 laparoscopic and 191 open procedures were performed. The AL and VI conversion rates were 11.9% and 10.46%, respectively. The total complication rate was estimated to be 13.9%, while VI-specific adverse events were recorded in 2.1% of all cases. CONCLUSIONS: VI could be a safe and effective alternative to a diverting stoma. Although currently, VI is not widely used, it could have a widespread application in laparoscopic surgery. However, definitive trials are needed before firm recommendations on the use of VI can be made.

"Virtual ileostomy" combined with early endoscopy to avoid a diversion ileostomy in low or ultralow colorectal anastomoses. A preliminary report.

PURPOSE: Despite the benefits of a loop ileostomy after total mesorectal excision (TME), it carries a significant associated morbidity. A "virtual ileostomy" (VI) has been proposed to avoid ileostomies in low-risk patients, which could then be converted into a real ileostomy (RI) in the event of anastomotic leak (AL). The aim of the present study is to evaluate safety and efficacy of VI associated with early endoscopy in patients undergoing rectal surgery with anastomosis to detect subclinical AL prior to the onset of clinical symptoms for sepsis. METHODS: This is a single-center, retrospective study of a consecutive series of patients undergoing elective or emergent colorectal surgery with low or ultralow colorectal or ileorectal anastomosis between September 2015 and September 2016. RESULTS: We included 44 consecutive, unselected patients. Eight patients (18.2%) required conversion into RI and one required terminal colostomy because of AL, of whom 44.4% were asymptomatic and AL was detected with early endoscopy. Fashioning of RI was not associated with further morbidity. All patients with AL converted into RI (n = 8/9) (88.9%), had adequate healed anastomosis, and later underwent stoma closure with no complications. A stoma was avoided in 79.6% of VI. Endoscopy was associated with 55% sensitivity and 100% specificity, with a global accuracy of 88%. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of VI with early postoperative endoscopy could avoid unnecessary ileostomies in patients with low or ultralow anastomoses and reveal AL before the onset of symptoms, thus reducing associated morbidity.

Virtual Ileostomy as an Option for Complicated Colorectal Resections.

When surgery requires a colorectal anastomosis, a diverting ostomy may be created to decrease the clinical impact of anastomotic failure. Unfortunately, diverting ileostomies are also associated with significant morbidity. Recent literature suggests that diverting ostomies are not necessary for the majority of patients undergoing colorectal anastomosis and that creation of a virtual ileostomy (VI) may spare patients the complications that accompany diverting ileostomy creation. We present 4 patients with complex medical histories who underwent colorectal resections with primary anastomoses and VI creation. None of these patients suffered anastomotic leak or required conversion of VI to defunctioning ileostomy and there were no major complications associated with VI creation. Our results, although limited by sample size, support the creation of a virtual ileostomy as a safe and effective alternative to diverting ileostomy creation at the time of colorectal anastomosis.