Ghost Ileostomy Research Articles

Investigation of Mortality and Morbidity In Patients Associated With Low Anterior Resection and Ghost Ileostomy

Background: Ghost ileostomy is a newly invented method that is used in patients with low anterior resection and colorectal anastomosis. Ghost ileostomy can be used instead of a converting stoma. A converting stoma (CS) is critical after low rectal resection procedures due to its role in preventing anastomosis leakage, especially in patients who are at higher risk, but its complications are non-negligible. The authors approached a study of Ghost ileostomy to identify its probable post-operation morbidity and mortality. The purpose of this study was to assess the prevalence of some post-operation morbidity such as anastomosis bleeding or hematoma, prolonged ileus, pulmonary embolism, intra-abdominal abscess, wound site infection, and other complications. Methods: 26 patients with low anterior resection and colorectal anastomosis due to colon cancer without any risk factor between 2013 and 2014 were selected. Checking of anastomosis leakage after 10-14 days post-operation was analyzed to assess the prevalence of anastomosis leakage and compare post-operation morbidity and mortality. Results: The mean age of cases was 55 years (40 to 65). 16 (61.5%) were male and 10 (38.5%) females. The average BMI is 23.7 and all of the patients are in the normal range. The authors’ mortality rate was negative. 2 patients (0.076%) suffered from prolonged ileus and one patient (0.038%) had a wound site infection. Other postoperation morbidities such as anastomosis bleeding or hematoma, pulmonary embolism, intra-abdominal abscess were negative. The authors had no stoma-related morbidity and also no anastomosis morbidity. Conclusions: Anastomosis leakage is the most common complication in colorectal surgeries. Diverting stoma can decrease complications of anastomosis leakage but there is no evidence of its preventing role. By using ghost ileostomy, the authors can manage selective loop ileostomy and the complications will be reduced. The most reliable way for anastomosis leakage diagnosis is the surgeon’s suspicion. Converting stoma that is used for preventing anastomosis leakage, has significant complications of its own. As the anastomosis leakage does not have a high prevalence, the authors can use ghost ileostomy to reduce the complications and improve the quality of life.

Randomised Controlled Pilot Trial on GHOST Ileostomy versus Conventional Loop Ileostomy in Patients Undergoing low Anterior Resection for Rectal Cancer

Abstract Background Anastomotic leakage is the most important complication after colorectal surgery. In patients undergoing low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision (LAR/TME) a loop ileostomy is fashioned to protect the low anastomosis. Ghost ileostomy is a pre-stage ileostomy, which can be converted to a diverting ileostomy, if anastomotic leakage is suspected. If there are no signs of anastomotic leakage an actual ileostomy can be avoided. Aims The objective was to evaluate whether ghost ileostomy is a safe alternative to a conventional loop ileostomy. Methods GHOST was a randomised controlled pilot trial without formal hypothesis. Patients undergoing LAR/TME for rectal cancer were intraoperatively randomised to receive a ghost ileostomy or loop ileostomy. Patients were followed prospectively for 6 months. Comprehensive complication index, transformation of ghost ileostomy into loop ileostomy, presence of an ostomy at 6 months, Wexner score and quality of life were assessed. Results Thirty patients were equally randomised. The CCI was 30.7 (± 17.7) in the ghost ileostomy group compared to 29.7 (± 18.6) in the loop ileostomy group at 6 months (p=0.889). The ghost ileostomy was converted into a loop ileostomy in 6 of 15 (40.0%) patients. At 6 months after low anterior resection, 6 (40.0%) patients in the ghost ileostomy group and 7 (46.7%) patients in the ileostomy group still had an ileostomy. There was no mortality and no need for creation of a terminal ostomy within the trial. Neither postoperative function assessed by the Wexner score, nor the overall quality of life showed significant differences. Conclusion Ghost ileostomy seems to be a viable and safe option to a more selective approach regarding creation of an ileostomy in patients undergoing LAR/TME. However, the difficult patient selection with exclusion of patients at high risk of anastomotic leakage limits its widespread application and should be optimised in future trials.

Ghost Ileostomy Release Down-Our Initial Experience

Abstract Background Many publications describe the advantages of the creation of ghost ileostomy (GI) to prevent the need for formal covering ileostomy in more than 80% of carcinoma rectum patients. However, none of the papers describes exactly how to ultimately remove the GI in these 80% of patients in whom it doesn't need formal maturation. Aim To describe and evaluate the ghost ileostomy release down (GIRD) technique in terms of feasibility, complications, hospital stay, procedure time etc. in patients with low anterior resection/ultra-low anterior resection (LAR/uLAR) with GI for carcinoma rectum. Method The present was a prospective cohort study of patients with restorative colorectal resections with GI for carcinoma rectum, Postoperatively the patients were studied with respect to ease and feasibility of the release down of GI and its complications. The data was collected, analyzed and inference drawn. Results A total of 26 patients needed the GIRD and were included in the final statistical analysis of the study. The procedure was done between 7th to 16th postoperative days (POD) and was successful in all patients without the need of any additional surgical procedure. None of the patients required any local anesthetic injection or any extra analgesics. The average time taken for procedure was 5-minutes and none of the patients had any significant difficulty in GI release. There were no immediate postprocedure complications. Conclusion The GIRD technique is a simple, safe, and quick procedure done around the 10th POD that can easily be performed by the bedside of patient without the need of any anesthesia or additional analgesics.

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

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. 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. 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. 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%). 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.

2022 Canadian Surgery Forum Sept. 15–17, 202201. Operative classification of ventral abdominal hernias: new and practical classification02. Watchful waiting for large primary splenic cysts03. Transversus abdominis plane (TAP) blocks with and without dexamethasone in colorectal surgery04. What factors determine publication of resident research day projects?05. Characterization of near-infrared imaging and indocyanine green use amongst general surgeons06. Variation in opioid prescribing

# 01. Operative classification of ventral abdominal hernias: new and practical classification {#article-title-2} Ventral hernias of the abdomen are defined as a noninguinal, nonhiatal defect in the fascia of the abdominal wall. Unfortunately, there is not currently a universal classification system

The Risk Factors of Anastomotic Leakage After Rectal Cancer Surgery

Background: Anastomotic leakage is a significant complication after colorectal anastomosis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the risk factors and preventive measures for anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer surgery. Methods: A total of 171 patients who had undergone laparoscopic and open rectal cancer resection with a double stapling participated in this study. Twelve independent variables include age, sex, obesity, smoking, ASA grading, medical diseases, preoperative radiotherapy, preoperative chemotherapy, splenic flexure mobilization, diverting ileostomy, and the number of stapler firing were analyzed. Results: The anastomotic leakage rate was 2.33% (4 of 171). The mean age of the patients was 58.33 years old while their mean body mass index (BMI) was calculated as 24.10 kg/m2. In our study, 16.3% of patients were cigarette smokers. Of the 171 rectal surgeries, 69.0% of patients were diverted by loop ileostomy and 1.16% were supported by ghost ileostomy. Of 171 patients included in this study, 17.5 % of patients required a single staple firing for rectal division. In contrast, 47.9% of patients required 2 linear staplers, others, 24.5% of patients required 3 cartridges for rectal division, and 9.9% of patients required 4 cartridges in their surgeries. There were significant differences between men and women in the number of cartridges used (P = 0.023). Conclusions: All our leakage cases were men and the higher number of stapler firings for rectal division, history of smoking; male gender, and level of anastomosis were independent risk factors for the anastomotic leak.

Feasibility and efficacy of ghost ileostomy in typhoid ileal perforations: A prospective observational study.

Loop ileostomy is commonly performed for typhoid ileal perforations as temporary faecal diversion. This is associated with several stoma-related complications and also requires further surgery for its closure. Thus, we were prompted to conduct a prospective observational study on the safety, feasibility and efficacy of ghost ileostomy in typhoid ileal perforations. After dealing with the perforation, a ghost ileostomy was performed in 10 selected patients with favourable circumstances; otherwise, a conventional loop ileostomy was performed in 19 patients. The two groups were comparable (p > 0.05) for morbidity and mortality except for stoma-related complications, seen only in the loop ileostomy group. Body weight was better preserved in the ghost ileostomy group. One patient in the ghost ileostomy group required conversion to loop ileostomy owing to signs of intra-peritoneal suture leak, without any detriment to outcome. Our study shows safety, feasibility and efficacy of ghost ileostomy in selected patients with typhoid ileal perforations, thus avoiding loop ileostomy in one-third of patients.

Technique of Ghost (Khatith) Ileostomy-How I Do It?

The concept of ghost/Khatith ileostomy is a bridge between covering ileostomy and no-ileostomy (‘Khatith’ meaning ‘hidden’ in Kashmiri language). We performed the pre-stage ghost ileostomy (GI) without parietal wall split. The technique of GI is that after the completion of resection-anastomosis of rectal cancer, a terminal ileal loop at about 20cm from ileocecal junction is identified. Small (10-12F) Ryle’s tube (RT) is passed through a small opening in the mesentery of the identified ileal loop. A small 4-5mm incision is given on abdominal wall at pre-operatively marked proposed stoma site in right iliac fossa region. Haemostatic Kelly’s forceps is introduced through this small incision to get out the two limbs of the RT that has been already looped around the identified ileal loop. These two limbs of the RT are cut short and fixed to each other and to the skin around it with 2-0 silk sutures, taking care to keep the tubing loop loose enough to avoid any tension to the vascular supply of the ileal loop and without causing any luminal compression of the loop to avoid bowel obstruction. In case of AL, the pre-stage GI can be converted into a formal covering stoma under local or spinal anesthesia by gentle pull of the two limbs of the looped RT to extract the isolated ileal loop through an adequate circular incision around the site of GI. In case of uncomplicated postoperative course, the fixing RT is pulled out gently from the abdominal cavity to release down the GI.

Comparative study between ghost ileostomy and defunctioning ileostomy in terms of morbidity and cost-effectiveness in low anterior resection for rectal cancer.

The aim of this study was to compare ghost ileostomy (GI) and defunctioning ileostomy (DI) in patients who underwent low anterior resection (LAR) for rectal cancer in terms of postoperative morbidity, rehospitalization rates, and total costs. Patients with an anastomosis level between 5 and 10 cm from the anal verge after LAR were analyzed retrospectively. Clinical characteristics, operative outcomes, postoperative morbidity, rehospitalization rates, and total costs were compared. A total of 123 patients were enrolled as follows: 42 patients in the GI group and 81 patients in the DI group. Anastomotic leakage (AL) was identified in three patients who underwent GI, and in all of them, GI was easily converted to DI. There were 96.3% of the patients with DI rehospitalized at least one time because of surgery-related and/or stoma-related complications or stoma closure. When we did not take into account the patients who were rehospitalized for stoma closure, the rates of rehospitalization were 4.7% and 22.2% in the GI and DI groups, respectively (P= 0.01). The mean total costs calculated by removing additional surgical procedures and adding all of the rehospitalization costs were 25,767 USD and 41,875 USD in the GI and DI groups, respectively (P= 0.0001). GI may be a safe and cost-effective method in patients who underwent LAR with low or medium risk factors for AL. It is possible to avoid unnecessary ileostomy and reduce unwanted outcomes due to it, such as postoperative complications, rehospitalizations, and increased total costs by performing GI.

Ghost ileostomy versus conventional loop ileostomy in patients undergoing low anterior resection for rectal cancer (DRKS00013997): protocol for a randomised controlled trial

IntroductionAnastomotic leakage is the most important complication in colorectal surgery occurring in up to 20% after low anterior rectal resection. Therefore, a diverting ileostomy is usually created during low anterior...

Is Ghost Ileostomy an Effective Method in Various Indications for Colorectal Surgery?

Diverting stoma has many complications and requires another operation. Ghost ileostomy is an option for occasional cases. We aimed to present the clinical data and early postoperative outcomes of our patients who had undergone ghost ileostomy. Ghost ileostomy was performed in 58 patients, depending on the level of the anastomosis, together with the experience and intraoperative decision of the surgeon. The patients were evaluated in terms of comorbidities, type of colorectal disease, and postoperative complications. Thirty-eight patients were male, the mean age was 59 ± 9 years, and the mean body mass index was 27 ± 5 kg/m2. Forty-six patients in whom a ghost ileostomy procedure was performed had sigmoid colon or proximal/middle rectal cancer, whereas eight patients had sigmoid diverticulitis, and four patients had ulcerative colitis. Anastomotic leakage was identified in 3 (5.1%) patients. In one patient, laparoscopic peritoneal lavage was performed, and ghost ileostomy was converted to diverting stoma, whereas in the other two patients, ghost ileostomy was converted to diverting stoma under local anesthesia. Ghost ileostomy can easily be converted to diverting stoma in some patients with no need for general anesthesia to reduce the morbidity of anastomotic leakage. With this method in selected patients, it is possible to avoid diverting stoma and unwanted complications of ileostomy.

A Decalogue to Avoid Routine Ileostomy in Selected Patients With Border Line Risk to Develop Anastomotic Leakage After Minimally Invasive Low-Anterior Resection: A Pilot Study.

Purpose. Protective ileostomy (PI) during anterior resection (AR) for rectal cancer decreases the incidence of anastomotic leakage (AL) and its subsequent complications, but it may itself be the cause of morbidity. The aim is to report our protocol in the management of selected patients with borderline risk to develop AL after laparoscopic AR and ghost ileostomy (GI) creation. Methods. Patients who underwent AR were stratified based on the risk to develop AL. Steps to avoid PI were splenic flexure mobilization, reduced pelvic bleeding, to employ different stapler charge if neoadjuvant chemo-radiotherapy is performed, to perform a horizontal section of the rectum, to evaluate the anastomotic vascularization with a fluorescence angiography, to perform a side-to-end anastomosis, intraoperative methylene blue test, pelvic and transanal drainage tubes placement, and the GI creation. After surgery, inflammatory blood markers were monitored to detect potential leakages. Results. Twelve patients were included. In one case, the specimen proximal section was changed after fluorescence angiography. There were no conversions in this group of patients. One postoperative AL occurred and was treated with radiological drainage placement, not being necessary to convert the GI. PI was avoided in 100% of cases. Conclusions. Patients' characteristics cannot be changed, but several steps were used to avoid routine PI creation. The present protocol could be a valuable option to avoid PI in selected patients. Further studies with a wider sample size, and defined criteria to stratify the patients based on the risk to develop AL, are required.

Ghost Ileostomy in Anterior Resection for Bowel Endometriosis: Technical Description

ObjectiveTo demonstrate our application of the ghost ileostomy in the setting of laparoscopic segmental bowel resection for symptomatic bowel endometriosis nodule. DesignTechnical step-by-step surgical video description (educative video) SettingUniversity Tertiary Hospital. Institutional Review Board ruled that approval was not required for this study. Endometriosis affects the bowel in 3% to 37% of all cases, and in 90% of these cases, the rectum or sigmoid colon is also involved. Infiltration up to the rectal mucosa and invasion of >50% of the circumference have been suggested as an indication for bowel resection [1]. Apart from general risks (bleeding, infection, direct organ injuries) and bowel and bladder dysfunctions, anastomotic leakage is one of the most severe complications. In women with bowel and vaginal mucosa endometriosis involvement, there is a risk of rectovaginal fistula after concomitant rectum and vagina resections. Hence, for lower colorectal anastomosis, the use of temporary protective ileostomy is usually recommended to prevent these complications but carries on stoma-related risks, such as hernia, retraction, dehydration, prolapse, and necrosis. Ghost ileostomy is a specific technique, first described in 2010, that gives an easy and safe option to prevent anastomotic leakage with maximum preservation of the patient's quality of life [2]. In case of anastomotic leakage, the ghost (or virtual) ileostomy is converted, under local anesthesia, into a loop (real) ileostomy by extracting the isolated loop through an adequate abdominal wall opening. In principle, avoiding readmission for performing the closure of the ileostomy, with all the costs related, means a considerable saving for the hospital management.Also, applying a protective rectal tube in intestinal anastomosis may have a beneficial effect [3]. These options are performed by general surgeons in oncological scenarios, but their use in endometriosis has never been described. InterventionsIn a 32-year-old woman with intense dysmenorrhea, deep dyspareunia, dyschesia, and cyclic rectal bleeding, a complete laparoscopic approach was performed using blunt and sharp dissection with cold scissors, bipolar dissector and a 5-mm LigaSure Advance (Covidien, Valley lab, Norwalk, Connecticut). An extensive adhesiolysis restoring the pelvic anatomy and endometriosis excision was done. Afterward, the segmental bowel resection was performed using linear and circular endo-anal stapler technique with immediate end-to-end bowel anastomosis and transit reconstitution. Once anastomosis was done, the terminal ileal loop was identified, and a window was made in the adjacent mesentery. Then, an elastic tape (vessel loop) was passed around the ileal loop, brought out of the abdomen through the right iliac fossa 5-mm port site incision and, fixed to the abdominal wall using nonabsorbable stitches. Finally, a trans-anal tube was placed for 5 days. The patient was discharged on the fifth day postoperatively without any complications. The tape was removed 10 days after surgery, and the loop dropped back. Two months after the intervention, the patient remains asymptomatic. ConclusionGhost ileostomy is a simple, safe, and feasible technique available in the setting of lower colorectal anastomosis following bowel endometriosis resection.

Comparative study of three different managements after colorectal anastomosis in ovarian cancer: conservative management, diverting ileostomy, and ghost ileostomy

ObjectiveAnastomotic leak remains the main concern after colorectal anastomosis in ovarian cancer. Our objective was to compare the use of three different management approaches after colorectal resection and anastomosis in...

Anastomotic Leakage in Rectal Surgery: Role of the Ghost Ileostomy.

A protective ileostomy performed during anterior resection in rectal surgery is considered a good practice to prevent anastomotic leakage. A derivative ostomy seems to be able to minimize the clinical consequences of an anastomotic leakage, but not to prevent it. The present study examined the role of the ghost ileostomy in anastomotic leakage following rectal surgery. This study included 82 patients that had undergone anterior rectal resection. A total of 32 patients underwent ghost ileostomy (GH) and 50 patients underwent ileostomy (IL). The incidence of anastomotic leakage was equal to 7.32%, occurring in 3 patients of the IL group (6%) and in 3 patients of the GH group (9.38%), in which the ghost was converted into derivative ileostomy. Therefore, 47 patients with IL (94%) underwent useless ileostomy implementation, and 29 patients (90.62%) with GH avoided ileostomy. In this study no increase in morbidity and mortality rate was observed. Therefore, ghost ileostomy proved to be as safe as ileostomy in terms of outcome, morbidity and mortality.

Ghost ileostomy in advanced ovarian cancer.

Ghost ileostomy in advanced ovarian cancer.

Does ghost ileostomy have a role in the laparoscopic rectal surgery era? A randomized controlled trial.

Anastomotic leakage following anterior rectal resection is the most important and most commonly faced complication of laparoscopy and open surgery. To prevent this complication, the construction of a preventing stoma is usually adopted. It is not easy to decide whether to construct a protective stoma in patients with a medium risk of anastomotic leakage. In these patients, ghost ileostomy (GI), a pre-stage ileostomy that can be externalized and opened if needed, has proved useful. We conducted a prospective, randomized, controlled study to evaluate the advantages of GI in laparoscopic rectal resection. All patients with surgical indications for laparoscopic rectal resection who were at medium risk for anastomotic leakage from January 2007 to January 2013 were included and were randomly divided in 2 groups. All of the patients were subjected to laparoscopic anterior rectal resection with the performance of GI (group A) or without the construction of any protective stoma (group B). The presence and severity of clinically evident postoperative anastomotic leakage and other postoperative complications and reinterventions were investigated. Of the 55 patients allocated to group A, 3 experienced anastomotic leakage compared with 4 in group B. The patients with GI experienced a lower severity of anastomotic leakage and shorter hospitalization compared with the patients in group B. None of the patients with GI and anastomotic leakage required laparotomy to treat the dehiscence. The use of GI in laparoscopic rectal resections in patients at medium risk for anastomotic leakage was useful because it allowed for the avoidance of stoma creation in all of the patients, thus reducing the number of stomas performed, improving the quality of life of the patients and preserving, in most cases, the benefits gained by laparoscopy.

Ghost Ileostomy in Anterior Resection for Rectal Carcinoma

There is no consensus in the literature as to whether all patients who undergo anterior resection of the rectum with total mesorectal excision should have a defunctioning stoma or only those at high risk of anastomotic dehiscence. The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the results of placing a removable Silastic band around the ileum during the abdominal phase to exteriorize it and create a loop ileostomy postoperatively without the need for laparotomy in case of an anastomotic complication. This approach is known as "ghost ileostomy." A vascular loop was passed around the terminal ileum through a window adjacent to the ileal wall. The loop was then exteriorized, through the abdominal wall, without tension, and secured to the skin on a rod. Two 24F Silastic drains were placed next to the anastomosis (anteriorly and posteriorly). From May 1997 to May 2011, 168 patients underwent anterior resection of the rectum with total mesorectal excision plus ghost ileostomy. Symptomatic anastomotic dehiscence was observed in 20 of 168 patients (11.96%) and developed on postoperative days 4 to 12 (median, postoperative day 7). In 13 of 20 cases, an ileostomy was fashioned with the patient under local anesthesia, and there was no need for relaparotomy. In 5 of 20 cases, the complication resolved with conservative management. In 2 of 20 cases, the patient's clinical condition rapidly deteriorated, generalized peritonitis developed, and surgical reintervention with abdominal toilette and colostomy was required. Ghost ileostomy allows selective loop ileostomy formation after low anterior resection of the rectum without the need for laparotomy in most cases. However, the technique should be reserved for instances in which the risk of leak is relatively low, such as anastomoses performed in the absence of neoadjuvant therapy. The role of routine ghost ileostomy following higher-risk anastomoses remains to be determined.

Ghost Ileostomy with or without abdominal parietal split

BackgroundIn patients who undergo low anterior rectal resection, the fashioning of a covering stoma (CS) is still controversial. In fact, a covering stoma (ileostomy or colostomy) is worsened by major complications related to the procedure, longer recovery time, necessity of a re-intervention under general anesthesia for stoma closure and poorer quality of life. The advantage of Ghost Ileostomy (GI) is that an ileostomy can be performed only when there is clinical evidence of anastomotic leakage, without performing further interventions with related complications when anastomotic leak is absent and therefore the procedure is not necessary. Moreover, in case of anastomotic dehiscence and necessity of delayed stoma opening, mortality and morbidity in patients with GI are comparable with the ones that occur in patients which had a classic covering stoma. On the other hand, is simple to think about the possible economic saving: avoiding an admission for performing the closure of the ileostomy, with all the costs connected (OR, hospitalization, post-operative period, treatment of possible complications) represents a huge saving for the hospital management and also raise the quality of life of the patients.MethodsIn this study we prospectively analyzed 20 patients who underwent anterior extra-peritoneal rectum resection for rectal carcinoma with TME and fashioning of GI realized with or without abdominal parietal split.ResultsIn the group of patients that received a GI without split laparotomy mortality was absent and in one case an anastomotic leak occurred. In the group of patients in which GI with split laparotomy was fashioned, one death occurred and there were one case of infection and one respiratory complication. Clinical follow-up was 12 months.ConclusionsThe use of different techniques for fashioning a GI do not present significant differences when they are performed by expert surgeons, but further evidence is needed with more randomized trials, in order to have more data supporting the clinical observation.

Ghost ileostomy after anterior resection for rectal cancer: a preliminary experience

The aim of this study was to describe and evaluate the feasibility and the eventual advantages of ghost ileostomy (GI) versus covering stoma (CS) in terms of complications, hospital stay and quality of life of patients and their caregivers after anterior resection for rectal cancer. In this prospective study, we included patients who had rectal cancer treated with laparotomic anterior resection and confectioning a stoma (GI or CS), in the period comprised between January 2008 and January 2009. Short-term and long-term surgery-related mortality and morbidity after primary surgery (including that stoma-related and colorectal anastomosis-related) and consequent to the intervention of intestinal recanalization (CS group) and GI closure were evaluated. We evaluated hospital stay and quality of life of patients and their caregivers. Stoma-related morbidity rate was higher in the CS group than in GI group (37% vs. 5.5%, respectively, P = 0.04). Morbidity rate after intestinal recanalization in the CS group was 25.9% and 0% after GI closure (P = 0.08). Overall stoma morbidity rate was significantly lower in the GI group with respect to CS group (5.5% vs. 40.7%, respectively, P = 0.03). CS group was characterized by a significantly longer recovery time (P = 0.0002). Caregivers and stoma-related quality of life were better in the GI group than in CS group (P < 0.0001 and P = 0.0005, respectively). GI is feasible, characterized by shorter recovery, lesser degree of total, as well as anastomosis-related morbidity and higher quality of life of patients and the caregivers in respect to CS. We suggest that GI (should be evaluated as an alternative to conventional ileostomy) could be indicated in selected patients that do not present risk factors, but require caution for anastomotic leakage for the low level of colorectal anastomosis.