Ileostomy Closure In Patients Research Articles

Transverse Coloplasty Pouch versus Straight Coloanal Anastomosis Following Intersphincteric Resection for Low Rectal Cancer: the Functional Benefits May Emerge After Two Years

PurposeThis study aimed to compare the oncological and functional outcomes following intersphincteric resection (ISR) with transverse coloplasty pouch (TCP) or straight coloanal anastomosis (SCAA) for low rectal cancer. MethodsA single-center retrospective analysis was performed on patients with low rectal cancer who received ISR between January 2016 and June 2021. The primary endpoint was to compare the outcomes of bowel function within 1 year, 1 to 2 years, and 2 years after ileostomy closure in patients undergoing two different bowel reconstruction procedures (TCP or SCAA). The postoperative complications and oncological results were also compared between the two groups. ResultsA total of 235 patients were enrolled in this study (SCAA group: 166; TCP group: 69). There was no significant difference in complications, including grades A–C anastomotic leakage (9.6% vs 15.9%), 3-year local recurrence rates (6.1% vs 3.9%), disease-free survival (82.4%vs 83.8%), or overall survival (94.1% vs 94.7%) between the two groups. Two years after ileostomy closure, 52.7% of patients in the SCAA group were assessed as having major low anterior resection syndrome (LARS), which was significantly higher than the 25.9% of patients in the TCP group (P = 0.014), but no difference was found prior to 2 years. Similar differences were seen in Wexner scores 2 years after surgery (P = 0.032). Additionally, TCP was an independent protective factor for postoperative bowel function as measured by both the LARS (OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.10–0.82; p = 0.020) and Wexner scoring (OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.09–0.84; p = 0.023). ConclusionThis study suggests that TCP is a safe technique that may decrease bowel dysfunction after ISR for low rectal cancer compared with SCAA 2 years after ileostomy closure.

Rektal kanser cerrahisinde koruyucu ileostomi, koruyucu ileostomi gerçekten geçici mi?

Aim: This single-center retrospective study aimed to evaluate the rate of protective ileostomy closure in patients with rectosigmoid junction/rectal cancer and to investigate the factors that prevent ileostomy reversal.
 Material and Method: Patients with rectal cancer treated with/without neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy were included in this study. All were treated with anterior rectal resection and temporary protective ileostomy creation. Decision for ileostomy closure was brought upon predefined ileostomy closure protocol.
 Results: Total number of 115 patients (17 with rectosigmoid junction and 98 with rectal cancer) were operated. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy was conducted in 90 of them. Ileostomy closure rate was 73.9%. Mean time for stoma closure in patients with chemoradiotherapy conduction was 227.8 days, while in the rest, time was shorter (168.3 days), without statistical difference. Multivariate analysis revealed that endoscopic examination of the anastomosis during its creation was independent prognostic factor that affected ileostomy closure.
 Conclusion: More than one quarter of the patients with protective ileostomy experienced non-closure of their stoma due to various events after index rectal cancer surgery. Endoscopic examination of the anastomosis during its creation presented as independent factor affecting ileostomy closure.

Outcome of early versus late ileostomy closure in patients with rectal cancers undergoing low anterior resection: A prospective cohort study

BackgroundProtective loop ileostomy is performed following low anterior resection (LAR) in patients with rectal cancer to reduce the complications of primary anastomosis. The optimal timing for ileostomy closure remains controversial. The aim of the current study was to compare the effects of early (<2 weeks) versus late (≥2 months) closure of the stoma in patients with rectal cancer undergoing LAR on surgical outcome and complications rates. MethodsThis prospective cohort study was conducted in two referral centers in Shiraz, Iran, during a 2-year period. We have consecutively and prospectively included adult patients with rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent LAR followed by protective loop ileostomy in our center during the study period. The baseline, tumor characteristics and complication as well as outcome was recorded in a 1-year follow-up and was compared between early and late ileostomy closure. ResultsOverall, 69 patients (32 in early and 37 in late group) were included. The mean age of the patients was 59.40 ± 9.30 years and there were 46 (66.7%) men and 23 (33.3%) women. Patients undergoing early closure of the ileostomy had significantly shorter operation duration (p<0.001) and lower intraoperative bleeding (p<0.001) compared to late ileostomy closure. There was no significant difference between two study groups regarding the complications. Early closure was also not found to be a predictive factor of post-ileostomy closure complications. ConclusionEarly closure (<2 weeks) of ileostomy after LAR in patients with rectal adenocarcinoma is a safe and feasible technique which is associated with favorable outcome.

Clostridium difficile infection after ileostomy closure and anastomotic failure in rectal cancer surgery patients.

BackgroundDiverting ileostomy during resection of rectal cancer is frequently performed in patients at risk of anastomotic failure. Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is reported to be frequent in patients who receive ileostomy closure with a questionable association to postoperative anastomosis leak. The primary aim of this study was to determine the incidence of CDI following ileostomy closure in patients who underwent rectal cancer surgery; the secondary aim was to assess the rate of postileostomy closure CDI in patients who presented with leakage at the original colorectal anastomosis site.MethodsMedical records of patients with rectal cancer who underwent ileostomy closure between January 2015 and December 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. All patients had previously received resection and anastomosis for primary rectal cancer with diverting ileostomy. Data regarding CDI incidence, preoperative status, perioperative management, and clinical outcomes were collected. CDI positivity was determined by direct real-time PCR and enzyme-linked fluorescent assays for detecting toxin A and B.Statistical analyses were computed for CDI risk factors.ResultsA total of 1270 patients were included and 208 patients were tested for CDI owing to colitis-related symptoms. The incidence of CDI was 3.6 per cent (46 patients). Multivariable analysis for CDI risk factors identified adjuvant chemotherapy (hazard ratio (HR) 2.28; P = 0.034) and colorectal anastomosis leakage prior to CDI (HR 3.75; P = 0.008). Finally, patients with CDI showed higher colorectal anastomosis leakage risk in multivariable analysis after ileostomy closure (HR 6.922; P = 0.001).ConclusionPatients with CDI presented with a significantly higher rate of colorectal anastomosis leakage prior to ileostomy closure.

Postoperative Ileus after Stimulation with Probiotics before Ileostomy Closure.

Loop ileostomy closure after colorectal surgery is often associated with Postoperative ileus, with an incidence between 13–20%. The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of preoperative stimulation of the efferent loop with probiotics prior to ileostomy closure in patients operated on for colorectal carcinoma. For this, a prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled study is designed. All patients who underwent surgery for colorectal carcinoma with loop ileostomy were included. Randomized and divided into two groups, 34 cases and 35 controls were included in the study. Postoperative ileus, the need for nasogastric tube insertion, the time required to begin tolerating a diet, restoration of bowel function, and duration of hospital stay were evaluated. The incidence of Postoperative ileus was similar in both groups, 9/34 patients stimulated with probiotics and 10/35 in the control group (CG) with a p = 0.192. The comparative analysis showed a direct relationship between Postoperative ileus after oncological surgery and Postoperative ileus after reconstruction surgery, independently of stimulation. Postoperative ileus after closure ileostomy is independent of stimulation of the ileostomy with probiotics through the efferent loop. There seem to be a relationship between Postoperative ileus after reconstruction and the previous existence of Postoperative ileus after colorectal cancer surgery.

Incidence and risk factors of delayed development for stoma site incisional hernia after ileostomy closure in patients undergoing colorectal surgery with temporary ileostomy

Background Stoma site incisional hernias after ileostomy closure are complex hernias that can be associated with abdominal pain, discomfort, and a diminished quality of life. The aim of this study was to determine the incidence of incisional hernia (IH) following temporary ileostomy reversal in patients undergoing colorectal surgery, and the risk factors associated with its development. Methods This was a prospective, single-centre, cohort study of patients undergoing ileostomy reversal between January 2010 and December 2016. Comorbidities, operative characteristics, comparison between early and late ileostomy closure and postoperative complications were analysed. Results A total of 202 consecutive patients were prospectively evaluated (median follow-up 46 months; range: 12–109). Stoma site incisional hernia occurred in 23% of patients (n = 47), diagnosed by physical examination or imaging tests. The reasons for the primary surgery were colorectal cancer (n = 141, 69.8%), inflammatory bowel disease (n = 14, 6.9%), emergency surgery (n = 35, 17.3%), and other conditions (n = 12, 5.9%). Secondary outcomes: a statistically significant risk factors for developing an IH was obesity (higher BMI) (OR 1.15, 95% CI: 1.05–1.26) p = .003). Conclusions 23% of patients developed surgical site IH, a higher BMI being the only risk factor found to be statistically significant in the development of an incisional hernia.

Prophylactic negative-pressure wound therapy after ileostomy reversal for the prevention of wound healing complications in colorectal cancer patients: a randomized controlled trial

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to assess the usefulness of protective negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) in the reduction of wound healing complications (WHC) and surgical site infections (SSI) after diverting ileostomy closure in patients who underwent surgery for colorectal cancer.MethodsIn this prospective randomized clinical trial in a tertiary academic surgical center, patients who had colorectal cancer surgery with protective loop ileostomy and were scheduled to undergo ileostomy closure with primary wound closure from January 2016 to December 2018 were randomized to be treated with or without NPWT. The primary endpoint was the incidence of WHC. Secondary endpoints were incidence of SSI, length of postoperative hospital stay (LOS), and length of complete wound healing (CWH) time.ResultsWe enrolled 35 patients NPWT (24 males [68.6%]; mean age 61.6 ± 11.3 years), with NPWT and 36 patients (20 males [55.6%]; mean age 62.4 ± 11.3 years) with only primary wound closure (control group). WHC was observed in 11 patients (30.6%) in the control group and 3 (8.57%) in the NPWT group (p = 0.020). Patients in the NPWT group had a significantly lower incidence of SSI (2 [5.71%] vs. 8 [22.2%] in the control group; p = 0.046) as well as significantly shorter median CWH (7 [7–7] days vs. 7 [7–15.5] days, p = 0.030). There was no difference in median LOS between groups (3 [2.5–5] days in the control group vs. 4 [2–4] days in the NPWT group; p = 0.072).ConclusionsProphylactic postoperative NPWT after diverting ileostomy closure in colorectal cancer patients reduces the incidence of WRC and SSI.Clinical trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov (NCT04088162).

Early ileostomy closure in patients with rectal cancer. Primary results of the randomized controlled multicenter trial

To evaluate safety of early closure of ileostomy in patients with rectal cancer after primary surgery. The trial included patients from several medical centers without signs of anastomotic leakage. CT-proctography or rectoscopy were performed in 8 days after primary surgery to confirm integrity of the anastomoses. Exclusion criteria were factors affecting normal tissue regeneration (diabetes mellitus, steroid drugs prescription, etc.). Patients with intact anastomoses and no exclusion criteria were randomized into 2 groups: group 1 (n=31) with early closure of ileostomy (in 8-13 days after surgery) and group 2 (n=34) with delayed closure (after 12 weeks). All data were analyzed. Postoperative morbidity was similar in both groups (6.45% vs. 5.88%, p=0.08). However, less duration of reconstructive surgery was noted in group 1 (50 (27-126) min vs. 71 min (31-134). This value was 1.42 times less in the main group (95% CI 1.30-1.52; p=0.02). Early closure of ileostomy in patients after surgery for rectal cancer is feasible and does not result increased postoperative morbidity. This approach may be considered as an alternative to delayed closure. However, further researches devoted to analysis of ileostomy-associated complications and quality of life are necessary.

Risk factors for complications after diverting ileostomy closure in patients who have undergone rectal cancer surgery.

To clarify the risk factors for complications after diverting ileostomy closure in patients who have undergone rectal cancer surgery. The study group comprised 240 patients who underwent a diverting ileostomy at the time of lower anterior resection or internal anal sphincter resection, in our department, between 2004 and 2015. Univariate and multivariate analyses of 18 variables were performed to establish which of these are risk factors for postoperative complications. The most common complications were intestinal obstruction and wound infection. Univariate analysis showed that an age of 72years or older (p = 0.0028), an interval between surgery and closure of 6months or longer (p = 0.0049), and an operation time of 145min or longer (p = 0.0293) were significant risk factors for postoperative complications. Multivariate analysis showed that age (odds ratio, 3.4236; p = 0.0025), the interval between surgery and closure (odds ratio, 3.4780; p = 0.0039), and operation time (odds 2.5179; p = 0.0260) were independent risk factors. Age, interval between surgery and closure, and operation time were independent risk factors for postoperative complications after diverting ileostomy closure. Thus, temporary ileostomy closure should be performed within 6 months after surgery for rectal cancer.

Effectiveness between early and late temporary ileostomy closure in patients with rectal cancer: A prospective study

A temporary stoma is often used in rectal cancer surgery to protect a distal anastomosis, which remains a major concern after rectal cancer surgery, particularly after low anterior resection. The temporary stoma is scheduled for closure. However, the optimal time of closure of the protecting stoma remains unclear because of sparse studies and data. We aimed to detect the efficacy between early and late temporary ileostomy closure in patients with rectal cancer during or after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. We conducted a prospective, 2-group design between early and late ileostomy closure group in patients after rectal cancer surgery with temporary stoma. Participants were recruited in a teaching hospital in Guangzhou, China. A total of 161 patients confirmed diagnosis of rectal cancer underwent curative surgery and temporary ileostomy. Participants with temporary ileostomy received closure surgery after 1 (early) or 6 (late) months were assessed by clinical parameters and quality of life. Patients in late closure group received more adjuvant chemotherapy cycles but with comparable incidence of stoma closure–related complications and length of hospital stay compared to early closure group. Participants in late closure group with standardized postoperative chemotherapy might have a better prognosis compared with those in early closure group. An increased emphasis should be given to choose the optimal closure time of patients with rectal cancer having temporary ileostomy. Colorectal nurses could provide support to physician for observation of prognosis of different closure time.

Overall Survival Associated With Ileostomy Closure in Patients With Rectal Cancer Before and After Adjuvant Therapy.

A diverting loop ileostomy is commonly constructed to protect a distal anastomosis after proctectomy for rectal cancer. Little data are available on whether closing the ileostomy before or after adjuvant chemotherapy affects survival. We conducted a retrospective review of patients with rectal cancer who underwent a low anterior resection with diverting loop ileostomy followed by adjuvant chemotherapy at Ochsner Medical Center. The primary outcome was the long-term survival in patients who had their loop ileostomies closed before chemotherapy (BC) vs after chemotherapy (AC). Seventy-two patients were identified (22 in the BC group vs 50 in the AC group). No difference in mean age (BC 59.5 ± 9.8 vs AC 59.2 ± 12.6, P=0.9) or preoperative clinical stage was seen between study groups. The mean interval from ileostomy creation to closure was significantly shorter in the BC group vs AC group (16.9 ± 14.5 weeks vs 33.6 ± 18.1 weeks, P=0.0001). Follow-up data revealed a similar mean duration from surgery to last contact (BC 50.6 ± 23.6 months vs AC 43.5 ± 22.1 months, P=0.23) and similar overall survival (BC 86% vs AC 70%, P=0.23) between groups. Long-term survival was similar in patients who underwent ileostomy closure before and after adjuvant therapy following low anterior resection for rectal cancer. While this study was underpowered, it adds additional insight to an area of surgery lacking significant data. The timing of ileostomy closure should be individualized for each patient.

Water-Soluble Enema Prior to Ileostomy Closure in Patients Undergoing Low Anterior Resection: Is It Necessary?

BackgroundDiverting ileostomy is recommended in patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and low anterior resection for low-rectal cancer. Prior to ileostomy reversal, water-soluble enema is performed to assess the low colorectal anastomosis. The aim of this study was to assess whether performance of routine water-soluble enema prior to ileostomy takedown is necessary. Materials and MethodsAll mid-low rectal cancer patients who underwent low anterior resection with temporary diverting ileostomy after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, between 2006 and 2013, were identified, retrospectively. The colorectal anastomosis prior to ileostomy takedown was evaluated by digital rectal exam, rigid proctoscopy, and water-soluble enema. The rectal exam and proctoscopy findings were compared to those of the water-soluble enema. The efficacy of routine water-soluble enema was assessed. ResultsThree hundred and twelve (184 male) patients (mean age 62.2 ± 17 years) met the inclusion criteria. Ten patients (3 %) experienced a contained anastomotic leak in the early postoperative period, of whom six had a positive intraoperative air leak test at the index operation. At follow-up, 12 patients (4 %) presented with anastomotic stricture, which was diagnosed by rectal exam and proctoscopy. In 11 of them, water-soluble enema showed anastomotic stricture. In terms of anastomotic defects, sinus was documented in two patients (0.6 %), yet digital rectal exam and proctoscopy were normal. No late septic complications related to the colorectal anastomosis after ileostomy closure were reported. The sensitivity of rectal exam, and proctoscopy for the diagnosis of anastomotic stricture was 100 %, while its negative predictive value for the diagnosis of anastomotic defect was 99 %. ConclusionRoutine water-soluble enema for the evaluation of colorectal anastomosis before ileostomy takedown does not provide additional information that changes patient management. The efficacy of this test in patients after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and low anterior resection should be reassessed.

Biofeedback Therapy Before Ileostomy Closure in Patients Undergoing Sphincter-Saving Surgery for Rectal Cancer: A Pilot Study.

PurposeThis study prospectively investigated the effects of biofeedback therapy on objective anorectal function and subjective bowel function in patients after sphincter-saving surgery for rectal cancer.MethodsSixteen patients who underwent an ileostomy were randomized into two groups, one receiving conservative management with the Kegel maneuver and the other receiving active biofeedback before ileostomy closure. Among them, 12 patients (mean age, 57.5 years; range, 38 to 69 years; 6 patients in each group) completed the study. Conservative management included lifestyle modifications, Kegel exercises, and medication. Patients were evaluated at baseline and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after ileostomy closure by using anal manometry, modified Wexner Incontinence Scores (WISs), and fecal incontinence quality of life (FI-QoL) scores.ResultsBefore the ileostomy closure, the groups did not differ in baseline clinical characteristics or resting manometric parameters. After 12 months of follow-up, the biofeedback group demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in the mean maximum squeezing pressure (from 146.3 to 178.9, P = 0.002). However, no beneficial effect on the WIS was noted for biofeedback compared to conservative management alone. Overall, the FI-QoL scores were increased significantly in both groups after ileostomy closure (P = 0.006), but did not differ significantly between the two groups.ConclusionAlthough the biofeedback therapy group demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in the maximum squeezing pressure, significant improvements in the WISs and the FI-QoL scores over time were noted in both groups. The study was terminated early because no therapeutic benefit of biofeedback had been demonstrated.

PWE-079 Longitudinal Assessment of Epithelial and Immune Cell Changes Following Ileostomy Closure in Patients with Ulcerative Colitis

IntroductionThe interactions between microbiota, epithelial barrier and innate immune responses are important in the pathogenesis of IBD. The ileo-anal pouch offers a unique opportunity to study these inter-relationships before the...

Sa1758 Longitudinal Assessment of Epithelial and Immune Cell Changes Following Ileostomy Closure in Patients With Ulcerative Colitis

Introduction The interactions between microbiota, epithelial barrier and innate immune responses are important in the pathogenesis of IBD. The ileo-anal pouch offers a unique opportunity to study these inter-relationships before the onset of disease. There are few data regarding tight junction expression or dendritic cell (DC) characteristics following restorative proctocolectomy (RPC). We aimed to assess the relationship between changes in epithelial tight junction expression, dendritic cell phenotype and mucosal cytokine production over the first year following RPC for ulcerative colitis (UC). Methods Mucosal biopsy samples were taken from the same UC patients undergoing RPC, from the ileostomy afferent loop, the pouch pre-ileostomy closure (P0) and the pouch 6 and 12 months post-ileostomy closure (n = 5). Eptihelial cells expression of zona occludens (ZO)-1, claudin 1 and claudin 2 and DC expression of TLR 2 and 4, CCR9, β7 and CD40 were measured by multicolour flow cytometry. Cytokines were assessed by multiplex ELISA of biopsy supernatants. The paired t-test was used for statistical analysis. Results Epithelial expression of claudin 2 was increased (p = 0.04) at 6 months and remained elevated at 12 months. No changes were seen in ZO-1 or claudin 1 expression. There was a significant increase in β7 expression on lamina propria DC (p = 0.02), but no differences in DC TLR or CD40 expresssion were seen at 6 months. DC expression of β7 was further elevated (p = 0.005) as well as significantly increased TLR 4 and CD40 expression (p = 0.04). No cytokines were found to be elevated at 6 months, but at 12 months there was a trend towards increased IL6 (p = 0.05). Conclusion In patients with UC, altered tight junction expression with increased epithelial expression of the “pore-forming” tight junction claudin 2 was an early event after ileostomy closure that preceded the onset of mucosal inflammation. In parallel, more lamina propria DC expressed gut homing markers possibly in response to increased exposure to the changing microbial signals and a more permeable epithelial barrier. These changes in parallel may lead to increased microbial stimulation of DC with increased TLR and co-stimulatory molecule expression that could predispose to the development of inflammation. Disclosure of Interest J. Landy Grant/Research Support from: The Broad Foundation, H. Al-Hassi: None Declared, E. Mann: None Declared, S. Peake: None Declared, P. Ciclitira: None Declared, J. Nicholls: None Declared, S. Clark: None Declared, S. Knight: None Declared, A. Hart: None Declared

Radiation-induced distal ileal obstruction complicating ileostomy closure

Radiation enteropathy is a recognized complication in patients who undergo neoadjuvant radiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer. Routine formation of defunctioning loop ileostomy in these patients may mask the development of stricturing, terminal ileal and radiation enteropathy which later may complicate the ileostomy closure. Our aim was to assess the preventive techniques and key warning signs. We present two cases of ileostomy closure in patients with occult, radiation-induced, terminal ileal stricture and review the relevant literature. The first case was complicated by dehiscence of the ileal anastomosis due to undiagnosed, downstream stenosis of the irradiated terminal ileum. A similar terminal ileal stricture was diagnosed in the second case by contrast fluoroscopy enabling an elective ileocolic anastomosis. The literature indicates the importance of identifying such problems prior to loop ileostomy closure. Contrast studies before loop ileostomy closure are valuable in limiting the complications of radiation-induced distal ileal obstruction in selected patients.

P049 Longitudinal assessment of epithelial and immune cell changes following ileostomy closure in patients with ulcerative colitis

P049 Longitudinal assessment of epithelial and immune cell changes following ileostomy closure in patients with ulcerative colitis

Is omitting pouchography before ileostomy takedown safe after negative clinical examination in asymptomatic patients with pelvic ileal pouch? An observational study

When restorative proctocolectomy (RPC) is performed, a temporary diverting loop ileostomy is often fashioned and usually closed 2-3 months later. Pouchography is used to assess pouch integrity, although its benefits have been questioned and no definitive data support its routine use. Our aim was to assess the utility of pouchography before ileostomy closure in patients with a negative clinical examination. We retrospectively reviewed our database of patients who underwent ileostomy takedown between 1987 and 2010. Two hundred and thirty-two patients were identified who underwent RPC with a W- or J-pouch for ulcerative colitis or familial adenomatous polyposis. Twenty-one patients underwent RPC without diversion. Twenty-four symptomatic patients were excluded from the study. Only asymptomatic patients with a normal clinical examination were enrolled. One patient was lost at follow-up. Hence, 186 patients were considered suitable for evaluation. Patients undergoing ileostomy closure without any radiological examination were assigned to Group A (n = 132); those operated on after a preoperative pouchography to Group B (n = 54). Pouchography was normal in 49 (90.7%) Group B patients. None of the 5 (9.3%) Group B patients with an abnormal radiographic examination experienced complications. Negative pouchography did not exclude future problems. Patients of both groups experienced similar early functional impairments. Failure occurred in 3 (2.3%) Group A patients and in 2 (3.7%) patients of the pouchography group. Pouchography may be safely omitted before ileostomy takedown if there is no clinical or endoscopic evidence of pelvic sepsis or ileo-anal anastomotic complications, even in very young patients, provided clinical and endoscopic follow-up is carefully performed. All anomalies detected were already suspected clinically.

Short-term outcome of infliximab and other medications on patients with inflammatory bowel disease undergoing ileostomy reversal

We evaluated the impact of immunosuppressive drugs on the short-term outcome following loop ileostomy closure in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Data on 249 patients with inflammatory bowel disease, who underwent loop ileostomy closure from 2001 to 2008, were retrospectively reviewed from a prospectively maintained database. Patients were distributed among groups according to the inflammatory bowel disease drugs used. Comorbidity, diagnosis, intra-operative and postoperative morbidity and length of stay data were analysed. Patients in group (INF) were receiving infliximab with or without other immunosuppressive agents (28), patients in group (S) were receiving only steroids (72) and those, in group III (S&I) were on steroids plus immunosuppressive agents, other than infliximab (35). Patients in group (ND) had not received any immunosuppressive agents for 2 months and served as the control group (114). Postoperative complication rates (wound infection, hernia, obstruction, intra-abdominal abscess, leakage, enterocutaneous fistula and sepsis) occured in 4.0, 12.0, 14 and 17.0% of patients in the four groups (P > 0.05). Reoperation was needed in 3.0% (2) of patients in group S, 6.0% (2) in S&I and 3.0% (3) in C groups, and the mean hospital stay was 4.6 (± 2.1), 5.6 (± 4.6), 5.2 (± 4.7) and 5.2 (± 6) days in groups INF, S, S&I and ND, respectively. There was no mortality. There were no significantly increased postoperative complications after ileostomy closure in patients who received infliximab or other immunosuppressive medications compared with patients who did not.

Complications of Loop Ileostomy Closure in Patients with Rectal Tumor

Loop ileostomy is customary after very low rectal anastomosis to reduce the rate of pelvic sepsis that can result from anastomotic leakage. To evaluate complications of stoma closure is important to maximize the benefit of making the defunctioning stoma. The aim of this study was to examine possible risk factors associated with complications, especially wound infections, after loop ileostomy closure in patients with rectal tumor. Data from 125 consecutive patients who underwent an elective closure of loop ileostomy after primary rectal tumor resection from January 2005 and October 2009 at a single institution were prospectively collected. Nineteen independent clinical variables were examined by univariate and multivariate analyses. Postoperative complications developed in 21 (16.8%) patients, including 20 (16%) wound infections, 1 (0.8%) ileus, and 1 (0.8%) anastomotic bleeding. There was no postoperative mortality. Risk factors for wound infection included male gender (odds ratio = 5.30; 95% confidence interval 1.14-24.8; p = 0.0339) and surgical site infection (SSI) after primary surgery (odds ratio = 5.00; 95% confidence interval 1.24-20.1; p = 0.0234). Mean length of postoperative hospital stay was significantly longer in patients with complications than in patients without them (14.0 versus 11.0 days; p = 0.0078). The present study showed that most complications associated with ileostomy closure in a homogeneous group of patients with rectal tumor were wound infections. Male gender and SSI after primary surgery were independent risk factors for the development of wound infections. Surgeons should be aware of such high-risk patients, and techniques other than primary closure might need to be considered in high-risk patients to reduce wound infections.