Protective Ileostomy Research Articles

Clinical and Oncological Impact of a Protective Ileostomy in Rectal Cancer Patients Undergoing Adjuvant Chemotherapy.

During low anterior rectal resection for rectal cancer, a protective ileostomy (PI) is routinely created to reduce the severity of anastomotic complications. The aim of this study was to investigate the side-effects of PI during adjuvant chemotherapy. A retrospective cohort of patients was operated on for non-metastatic rectal cancer with a PI during 2005-2022. Patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) were compared with those not receiving AC. A subgroup analysis compared patients with early PI closure (<10 weeks) and those with a PI in place during chemotherapy. A total of 242 patients were included: 178 (73.6%) without adjuvant chemotherapy and 64 (26.4%) with. History, tumour location, neoadjuvant treatment and postoperative follow-up were similar for both groups. Patients treated with AC had a greater risk of renal failure (37.5% vs. 14.6%, p=0.0002), ionic disorders (45.3% vs. 26.9% p=0.008), malnutrition (23.4% vs. 5.6%, p=0.0002) and rehospitalization (35.9% vs. 18.5% p=0.007). Patients treated with AC needed significant dose adjustments of oxaliplatin in 40.6% of cases, this adjustment being higher in patients with a PI compared to patients with early closure (47.1 vs. 9.1%, p=0.021). Presence of a PI during chemotherapy predisposes to increased episodes of renal failure, and requires major adaptation of chemotherapy doses, especially of oxaliplatin.

Impact of the laparoscopic approach, early closure and preoperative stimulation on outcomes of ileostomy closure after rectal resection

AimTo evaluate the clinical outcome of early closure of a protective ileostomy and preoperative stimulation of the efferent limb in a cohort of patients with rectal cancer treated surgically, primarily using the laparoscopic approach. MethodsWe performed an observational retrospective cohort study in a prospectively recorded series of patients with rectal cancer who underwent laparoscopic surgery with a protective loop ileostomy between 2017 and 2022. Ileostomy closure was programmed for within 3 months after surgery. All patients underwent stimulation of the efferent limb. Primary outcomes were morbidity and mortality, length of stay (LOS), and re-admission. ResultsBetween 2017 and 2022, 108 patients underwent resection for rectal cancer and protective ileostomy. The laparoscopic approach was performed in 84.3% of patients (n = 91). Permanent ileostomy was performed in 5 patients (4.6%). Ileostomy closure was thus performed in 95.4% of patients (n = 103). Median time to closure was 74.5 days (range 57–113). In 63.1% (n = 65) of patients, reconstructive surgery was performed within 90 days. Prior to closure, efferent limb stimulation was performed in 77.8% (n = 84) of patients. Global morbidity was 26.2% (n = 27) (85.19%, n = 23 Clavien-Dindo I and 7.41%, n = 2 Clavien-Dindo II). The main causes of morbidity were postoperative ileus (10.7%, n = 11) and rectal bleeding (8.7%, n = 9). Anastomosis leakage occurred in 2 patients. Median hospital stay was 6 days (5–7). Readmission was needed in 6.8% (n = 7) of patients. ConclusionA previous laparoscopic approach, early closure and stimulation of the efferent limb could be a useful strategy to reduce the morbidity and mortality of temporary ileostomy closure.

Robotic Sigmoidectomy for Diverticular Disease.

Introduction: Historically, colon resection was recommended after one episode of complicated diverticulitis. However, current trends favor a more individualized approach. This review examines elective sigmoidectomy for complicated diverticulitis as well as robotic approaches for diverticular disease. Methods: The literature was reviewed for timely (post 2000) and relevant articles regarding robotics and diverticulitis. The articles included large prospective series, retrospective analysis, meta-analyses and randomized controlled trials. Results: Primary anastomosis with or without protective ileostomy has emerged as an alternative to the Hartman's procedure in emergent or urgent surgery in patients without significant comorbidities. Elective sigmoidectomy after an episode of complicated diverticulitis should be decided on a case-by-case basis considering patient characteristics, continued subacute symptoms, complications from the disease, and chance of recurrence episodes. Conclusions: There are several variations techniques for robotic sigmoidectomy outlined in this article, and familiarity with all can help depending on the logistics of the case. Minimally invasive colectomy provides superior patient satisfaction and outcomes.

Classic and Visceral-Sparing Complete Pelvic Peritonectomy for Peritoneal Surface Malignancies: A Video Demonstration in Female Patients.

Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with or without hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy has become standard for resectable peritoneal surface malignancies. CRS aims to achieve complete resection of macroscopic disease through peritonectomy procedures and visceral resections. The pelvis is very frequently involved in peritoneal malignancies, making surgical techniques that ensure complete tumor removal an essential part of CRS. This is best achieved through an enbloc pelvic peritonectomy, which frequently includes a hysterectomy and bilateral oophorectomy in women. We created a video to review technical steps and exposure tips to achieve a complete cytoreduction of the pelvis in female patients with enbloc resection of the entire pelvic peritoneum, including the cul-de-sac, the uterus, and the adnexa, with ('classic pelvic peritonectomy') or without ('visceral-sparing pelvic peritonectomy') rectosigmoid resection. The creation of a protective ileostomy in classic pelvic peritonectomy is routine in many centers, while other centers advocate only selective and sparing use of ileostomy. In our center, protective ileostomy is used selectively and is therefore not included in the video. In the first part of the video, we review the rationale, indications, and steps, while in the second part, we show a practical demonstration of both a classic and a visceral-sparing pelvic peritonectomy in female patients. Complete pelvic peritonectomy can be achieved both with or without enbloc resection of the rectosigmoid colon. This technique is an essential part of CRS, and mastery of the technique can help the likelihood of achieving complete tumor removal in advanced or complex involvement of the pelvis.

Assessing the Impact of Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy on Anastomotic Integrity after Cytoreductive Surgery in Gastrointestinal Malignancies

Peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) from gastrointestinal malignancies, particularly colorectal and gastric cancers, represents a significant therapeutic challenge due to the diffuse nature of tumor spread. The combination of cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) has emerged as a promising treatment modality, offering potential survival benefits by targeting residual microscopic disease. However, this aggressive approach is associated with a heightened risk of gastrointestinal anastomotic leaks, one of the most severe complications of gastrointestinal surgery. These leaks result from a complex interplay of factors, including hyperthermia-induced ischemia, chemotherapy-induced cytotoxicity, and a pro-inflammatory cytokine cascade involving IL-6, TNF-α, and IL-1β, which impair tissue healing. Furthermore, dysbiosis of the intestinal microbiota induced by HIPEC contributes to local inflammation and an increased risk of infection, exacerbating the likelihood of anastomotic failure. The duration and temperature of the HIPEC procedure, the extent of surgery, and the patient’s performance status and tumor burden further influence the risk of leaks. Preventive strategies such as preoperative nutritional optimization, meticulous surgical technique, intraoperative reinforcement of anastomoses, and selective use of protective ileostomies are critical for minimizing these risks. Early detection and prompt management of leaks are essential for reducing morbidity and mortality, improving both short-term and long-term outcomes. This review comprehensively examines the multifactorial causes of anastomotic leaks in the setting of CRS and HIPEC and highlights potential strategies for prevention and improved management.

Case Report: A 31-Year-Old Man with Relapsing Complicated Diverticulitis after Initial Conservative Treatment

BACKGROUND: There is controversy regarding the surgical approach for severe complications of diverticular disease. The classical approach has been a Hartmann’s procedure, but laparoscopic lavage and drainage has been suggested as an alternative. We present a patient who initially responded to conservative management of complicated diverticulitis, but had a recurrence that was managed surgically. CASE PRESENTATION: A 31-year-old man presented with Hinchey Stage I diverticulitis and was discharged from the hospital after medical management. Six days later, he returned to the hospital with radiographic evidence of a pericolonic abscess. The patient was taken to the operating room for laparoscopic drainage with placement of a drain in the abscess cavity. He required reoperation with sigmoid colon resection, primary anastomosis, and diverting ileostomy. DISCUSSION: Despite requiring reoperation, the authors believe that initial conservative management possibly prevented progression to generalized feculent peritonitis. If this had occurred, the patient may have required Hartmann’s procedure, which is associated with more complications than primary anastomosis with protective ileostomy. CONCLUSION: The patient had recurrence of complicated diverticular disease that was initially managed conservatively and then with laparoscopic drainage, followed by primary anastomosis with protective ileostomy. Given individual patient factors, the authors believe that he was managed optimally. There is currently controversy between the use of laparoscopic lavage and drainage versus Hartmann’s procedure for the management of complicated colonic diverticular disease and more investigation is required on the subject.

Factors associated with leakage after reversal of protective stoma in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer following curative resection and anastomosis

IntroductionAnastomotic leakage (AL) is a significant complication in colorectal surgery with numerous general and specific risk factors. The determinants of colorectal AL following the reversal of a protective defunctioning ileostomy remain unclear and warrant further investigation. Material and methodsData from April 2008 to December 2014 were collected and retrospectively reviewed for 361 consecutive patients who underwent protective ileostomy reversal following curative resection with anastomosis for rectal cancer. The baseline, treatment, and oncological variables of patients associated with post-reversal AL were evaluated using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis. The impact of AL on long-term survival outcomes was assessed using Kaplan-Meier survival analyses. ResultsIn a study of 361 patients, 52 (14.4 %) experienced leakage following stoma reversal, manifesting at a median of 5.7 months. Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that an anastomosis located less than 7 cm from the anal verge (OR 2.82, p = 0.008), a side-to-end anastomotic configuration (OR 2.02, p = 0.036), involvement of the circumferential resection margin (OR 6.46, p = 0.043), and adjuvant radiotherapy (OR 4.69, p = 0.003) significantly predicted post-reversal AL. Notably, five-year overall survival (63.4 % vs. 90.3 %, p < 0.0001) and disease-free survival (46.9 % vs. 71.1 %, p = 0.001) were significantly lower in patients with post-reversal AL. ConclusionsOur analysis identified several clinicopathological factors associated with post-reversal AL, which is linked to a significant decrease in long-term survival and oncological outcomes. Alleviating these adverse effects necessitates ensuring early detection and effective management of leaks among high-risk patients.

Surgical maneuvers for long-segment Hirschsprung pull-through in unique patients.

Patients with Hirschsprung disease affecting the splenic flexure or more proximal segments present a surgical challenge. Mobilizing the transverse colon to the pelvis during a pull-through may obstruct the distal ileum, or the length may be insufficient to reach the lower pelvis. This retrospective study aimed to describe two surgical techniques that facilitate mobilization of the transverse colon and their outcome. We included patients operated on between April 2017 and April 2024 and analyzed sex, comorbidities, type of pull- through,age at pull-through, history ofprevious surgeries, cause of the proximal transverse colon pull-through, technique used (Deloyers or Turnbull), complications, postoperative outcomeand follow-up. The first technique used was the maneuver described by Turnbull. This operation creates a mesenteric defect and mobilizes the colon into this mesenteric window at the distal ileum level. The second technique was described by Deloyers and involves a 180-degree rotation of the right colon by dissecting the right colon attachment and the hepatocolic ligament. The cecum and the ileocecal valve are placed in the right upper quadrant, and the distal colon is mobilized into the pelvis. We included 13 patients, 12 boys and 1 girl. Eight patients had previous surgeries in another hospital: five had an initial transverse colostomy, and three had an ileostomy. The remaining five had the initial operation in our hospital: two had an ileostomy, two had a colostomy, and one had a primary pull-through. The median age at pull-through was 16months (4-59months). We used the Turnbull technique in four patients whose aganglionosis was limited to the middle transverse colon. The Deloyers technique was used in the remaining patients, with ganglion cells in the proximal transverse colon. We left a protective ileostomy in five patients. The median follow-up was 4.5years (3months to 10years). The stoma takedown is pending in one patient. The Turnbull and Deloyers techniques were helpful in patients with aganglionosis affecting the transverse colon.

Impact of the laparoscopic approach, early closure and preoperative stimulation on outcomes of ileostomy closure after rectal resection

AimTo evaluate the clinical outcome of early closure of a protective ileostomy and preoperative stimulation of the efferent limb in a cohort of patients with rectal cancer treated surgically, primarily using the laparoscopic approach. MethodsWe performed an observational retrospective cohort study in a prospectively recorded series of patients with rectal cancer who underwent laparoscopic surgery with a protective loop ileostomy between 2017 and 2022. Ileostomy closure was programmed for within 3 months after surgery. All patients underwent stimulation of the efferent limb. Primary outcomes were morbidity and mortality, length of stay (LOS), and re-admission. ResultsBetween 2017 and 2022, 108 patients underwent resection for rectal cancer and protective ileostomy. The laparoscopic approach was performed in 84.3% of patients (n = 91). Permanent ileostomy was performed in 5 patients (4.6%). Ileostomy closure was thus performed in 95.4% of patients (n = 103). Median time to closure was 74.5 days (range 57–113). In 63.1% (n = 65) of patients, reconstructive surgery was performed within 90 days. Prior to closure, efferent limb stimulation was performed in 77.8% (n = 84) of patients. Global morbidity was 26.2% (n = 27) (85.19%, n = 23 Clavien-Dindo I and 7.41%, n = 2 Clavien-Dindo II). The main causes of morbidity were postoperative ileus (10.7%, n = 11) and rectal bleeding (8.7%, n = 9). Anastomosis leakage occurred in 2 patients. Median hospital stay was 6 days (5–7). Readmission was needed in 6.8% (n = 7) of patients. ConclusionA previous laparoscopic approach, early closure and stimulation of the efferent limb could be a useful strategy to reduce the morbidity and mortality of temporary ileostomy closure.

Clinical Outcomes of Ileostomy Closure during versus after Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Patients with Rectal Cancer.

Protective ileostomy can effectively prevent severe anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer surgery; however, the optimal timing for ileostomy closure during adjuvant chemotherapy remains unclear. This study aimed to explore the safety and long-term outcomes of early ileostomy closure during adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients who underwent laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery combined with protective ileostomy and adjuvant chemotherapy between April 2017 and April 2021 were retrospectively evaluated. Patients were divided into an early closure group during chemotherapy (group A) and a late closure group after chemotherapy (group B). A total of 215 patients were included in this study, with 115 in group A and 100 in group B. There were no significant differences in demographic and clinical characteristics between the two groups. In group A, durations of stoma status (p < 0.001) and low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) (p < 0.001) were shorter, and rectal stenosis (p=0.036) and stoma-related complications (p=0.007), especially stoma stenosis (p=0.041), were less common. However, compliance with chemotherapy was worse (p=0.009). There were no significant differences in operative time, postoperative hospital stay, postoperative complications, incidence and severity of LARS, disease-free survival, or overall survival between groups. Early ileostomy closure can effectively reduce the duration of stoma status, duration of LARS, rectal stenosis, and stoma-related complications while not affecting surgical complications and oncological outcomes. Ileostomy closure should not be delayed because of adjuvant chemotherapy. However, follow-up should be strengthened to increase compliance and integrity with chemotherapy.

Laparoscopic Modified Radical Hysterectomy for Severe Endometriosis: A Single-Center Case Series

Study objectiveThe main objective is to describe the feasibility and report a single centre experience of a standardized laparoscopic modified radical hysterectomy technique among patients with severe endometriosis and pouch of Douglas obliteration. DesignA single-center case series of laparoscopic modified radical hysterectomy performed at the Poissy Hospital between December 2012 and May 2021. SettingsSingle-center, gynecology unit (level III) with a focus on endometriosis. PatientsPatients with severe endometriosis (stage 4 AFS) and pouch of Douglas Obliteration. Measurements and Main ResultsFifty-two patients with severe endometriosis underwent the surgical procedure.Out of these patients: 23.1% underwent a rectal shaving (n= 12), 1.9 % a discoid resection (n= 1) and 17.3% a rectal resection (n= 9), including a protective ileostomy in one case. Ureterolysis was performed on 82.7% of patients (n= 43). The average hospital stay was 3.3 days (1-12). Seven patients required intermittent self-catheterization (13.5%). Minor complications (Clavien-Dindo grade 1 and 2) occurred to 25.9% of the patients and severe complications to 3.8% of them (Clavien-Dindo grade 3, no grade 4). Two patients (3.8%) were reoperated: one for a postoperative occipital alopecia (balding) and the other for vaginal dehiscence with evisceration. About 50 patients (96.2%) had a complete resection of endometriosis. The median follow-up was 14 months (interquartile range 6-23 months) with 94.3% of them improved (much and very much) and 3.8% minimally improved. ConclusionIn our experience, laparoscopic modified radical hysterectomy is a reliable procedure with a low rate of severe complications. This technique needs to be assessed by other surgeons and others centers across the country and abroad, in order to determine the likehood of it succeeding.

Pelvic Floor Peritoneum Closure Reduces Severe Postoperative Complications in Rectal Cancer Patients After Laparoscopic Anterior Rectal Resection.

Laparoscopic anterior rectal resection (LAR) is a commonly performed surgery for rectal cancer patients. Pelvic floor peritoneum closure (PC), a vital procedure in conventional anterior rectal resection, is not routinely performed in LAR. A total of 1118 consecutive patients with rectal cancer receiving LAR were included in this retrospective study. Patients were allocated into the PC group and the non-PC group. The occurrence of postoperative complications was compared between the 2 groups. Influential factors in anastomotic leakage (AL) were explored using univariate and multivariate logistic regression. There was no difference between the groups in terms of baseline characteristics. The occurrence of postoperative complications was similar between the groups. The PC group had significantly shorter postoperative hospitalization and longer operation duration compared with the non-PC group. The occurrences of Clavien-Dindo (CD) III-IV complications, CD III-IV AL, and reoperation were significantly lower in the PC group than the non-PC group. PC and a protective ileostomy were independent protective factors for CD III-IV AL. PC could reduce the occurrence of CD III-IV complications, especially CD III-IV AL, and the rate of secondary surgery, especially in patients with a lower body mass index and patients who did not receive protective ileostomies.

P214 Effects of rectal stump proctitis on short-term postoperative complications after proctectomy and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for Ulcerative Colitis

Abstract Background Inflammation of the rectal stump (proctitis) after subtotal colectomy with ileostomy for ulcerative colitis (UC) is common. Proctitis may affect the postoperative outcomes of ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA). This study aims to explore associations between rectal stump proctitis and short-term postoperative complications (POCs) after proctectomy and IPAA for UC. Methods This retrospective single-centre study included patients who underwent proctectomy, IPAA and protective ileostomy for UC from 2000-2023. Data were retrieved from our prospectively-maintained database. Exclusion criteria were dysplasia or cancer (103 pts), missing pathology results (50 pts), undetermined colitis or Crohn’s Disease features at proctectomy (18 pts). All patients underwent three-staged IPAA and were divided into four groups according to the rectal stump proctitis status at pathology: remission, mild, moderate, and severe proctitis. A stepwise binary logistic regression analysis was performed for each short-term outcome. Models included variables with a different distribution according to the outcome (p-value ≤0.1). Results We included 785 patients who underwent proctectomy and IPAA. At pathology, remission was achieved by 162 (20.6%) patients, while proctitis of the rectal stump was mild in 211 (26.9%), moderate in 246 (31.3%), and severe in 166 (21.1%) patients, respectively. Table 1 details population characteristics and outcomes according to the proctitis status. Patients with moderate and severe proctitis received more preoperative biologics and ongoing systemic steroids at surgery. While they underwent previous abdominal surgery less frequently, the laparoscopy rate was lower with a longer postoperative length of stay. At multivariate (Table 2), Medical POCs were independently associated with ongoing antibiotics (OR 2.29 [1.01-5.20] p=0.047) and ASA score≥3 (OR 1.93 [1.11-3.35] p=0.019). Surgical POCs were independently associated with ongoing systemic steroids (OR 2.09 [1.19-3.68] p=0.011, while ongoing antibiotics (OR 0.2 [0.04-0.86] p=0.031) and laparoscopy (OR 0.53 [0.28-1.00] p=0.049) were protective. Intra-abdominal septic complications (IASCs) and abdominal/pelvic abscesses were independently associated with the proctitis status (OR 1.1 [1.06-2] p=0.018 and OR 1.56 [1.08-2.25] p=0.017, respectively). Conclusion Rectal stump proctitis was independently associated with postoperative abdominal and pelvic abscesses and IASCs after proctectomy and IPAA for UC. The association between proctitis and IPAA’s long-term outcomes and pouch failure need to be further explored.

Cytomegalovirus infection as a rare cause of colitis.

A 62 year-old-man with low anterior rectal resection and protective ileostomy, for low rectal neo and neoadjuvant QT +RT. Then ileostomy closure without incidences. On the 3rd postoperative day, he started with fever peaks and diarrhea. An abdominal CT scan showed diffuse thickening of the wall of the descending colon compatible with colitis and colonoscopy showed deep rectal ulcers with punch-like morphology with hyperemic mucosa with erythematous stippling of erosive appearance, showing this ulcerative pattern with numerous lesions and intensely edematous and congestive mucosa covered with abundant fibrinopurulent exudate in the descending colon. Biopsies and stool cultures were negative, but serologies were positive for CMV. Suspected CMV infection in a immunosuppressed by chemotherapy patient, he was treated with ganciclovir. The patient presented clinical improvement, without fever or diarrhea and improvement of the punch ulcers in the endoscopic controls, so he could be discharged from the hospital with follow-up in the outpatient consulting offices.

Role and Morbidity of Protective Ileostomy after Anterior Resection for Rectal Cancer: One Centre Experience and Review of Literature

The creation of a protective stoma is considered a valid life-saving tool, significantly reducing the effects of anastomotic leakage in terms of related morbidity, mortality, and reoperation rate. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of a protective loop ileostomy in terms of short- and long-term postoperative morbidity, quantifying the stoma-related complications arising after stoma creation and stoma closure and the risk of permanent stoma. From January 2009 to January 2020, 149 patients with rectal cancer treated by anterior resection and protective ileostomy were enrolled in the study. A total of 113 (75.84%) patients were preoperatively treated with neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy. A clinically relevant anastomotic leak occurred in two patients (1.34%). The postoperative stoma complication rate was 6%. According to the Clavien classification, the stoma-related complication grade was I in seven patients (4.7%) and II in two patients (1.3%). A late stoma-related parastomal hernia occurred in one patient (0.67%). In 129 patients (86.57%), it was possible to close the stoma. Postoperative complications of stoma closure occurred in 12 patients (9.3%). The stoma closure complication grade was I in seven cases (5.43%), II in two cases (1.55%), and ≥3 in three cases (2.33%). Incisional hernia was the only late complication recorded in seven cases (5.42%). The permanent stoma rate was 13.43%. A protective ileostomy has a nonnegligible complication rate, but the rate of severe complications is low. Every effort should be made to clearly identify patients in whom the risk of anastomotic leakage justifies the stoma.

Impact of ileostomy on postoperative wound complications in patients after laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: A meta-analysis.

To prevent anastomotic leakage and other postoperative complications after laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery, a protective ileostomy is often used. However, the necessity of performing ileostomy after laparoscopic rectal cancer remains controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess the benefit of ileostomy on wound infection after laparoscopic rectal cancer. The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science, and PubMed were used to retrieve all related documents up to September 2023. Completion of the trial literature was submitted once the eligibility and exclusion criteria were met and the literature quality assessment was evaluated. This study compared the post-operative post-operative complications of an ileostomy with that of non-ileostomy in a laparoscope. We used Reman 5.3 to analyse meta-data. Controlled studies were evaluated with ROBINS-I. The meta-analyses included 525 studies, and 5 publications were chosen to statistically analyse the data according to the classification criteria. There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of postoperative wound infections among ostomate and nonostomate (odds ratio [OR], 1.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66, 4.84; p = 0.25). In 5 trials, the incidence of anastomotic leak was increased after surgery in nonostomate patients (OR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.12, 0.57; p = 0.0009). Two studies reported no significant difference in the length of operation time when nonstomal compared to stomal operations in patients with rectal cancer (mean difference, 0.87; 95% CI, -2.99, 4.74; p = 0.66). No significant difference was found in the rate of wound infection and operation time after operation among the two groups, but the incidence of anastomosis leak increased after operation. Protective ileostomy after laparoscopic rectal cancer was effective in reducing the risk of anastomotic leakage in patients, and we found no additional risk of infection. We cautiously conclude that protective ileostomy is active and necessary for patients with a high risk of anastomotic leakage after surgery, which needs to be further confirmed by high-quality studies with larger samples.

The Role of Ileostomy in the Prevention and Treatment of Anastomotic Leakage after Elective Rectal Cancer Surgery - A Retrospective Analysis of Specific Risk Factors, Outcomes, and Complications.

Background: The objective of this paper is to highlight the role and place of ileostomy from the perspective of the risk of anastomotic leakage (AL). Materials and method: This was a retrospective study of 74 (46.54%) low and ultra-low anterior resections from 159 cases of rectal cancer operated on in a seven-year interval (2015 - 2021). The cases were divided into two groups: Group A with protective ileostomy (47 cases = 63.51%) and Group B without protective ileostomy (27 cases = 35.49%). Results: The type of anastomosis was low colorectal for 15 cases and ileorectal for two cases, both in Group A, with either mechanical or manual sutures. Continuous loop ileostomy was the only fecal diversion procedure used for protection. The ileostomy-specific complications recorded in Group A were peristomal skin lesions (8 cases), early peristomal hernia (2 cases), and severe dehydration with acute renal-insufficency (7 cases). The closure of the ileostomy was performed in 42 cases (89.36%), with the time between the primary operation and the closure being 4.28 months on average, with limits between 12 days and 10 months. AL treatment was conservative in 13 (76.47%) cases and surgical in four cases, with the types of operations performed at reintervention being take-down of the anastomosis + left terminal colostomy + ileostomy closure in three cases (2 in Group A and 1 in Group B) and terminal ileostomy in one case in Group A. Conclusions: To reduce its specific complications, ileostomy should be performed in well-selected patients. Those with risk factors for leakage include males, the elderly, and those having important comorbidities, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, low tumors below 5 cm from the anal verge, or complete circumferential stenosis and peritumoral inflammatory infiltrate.

Protective ileostomy after low anterior resection for extraperitoneal rectal cancer: does the reversal surgery timing affect closure failure?

Loop ileostomy is commonly performed after LAR with TME to temporarily protect the anastomosis. Usually, defunctioning stoma is closed after 1-6months, although sometimes it becomes definitive de facto. The aim of this study is to investigate the long-term risk of no-reversal of protective ileostomy after LAR for middle-low rectal cancer and the predictive risk factors. A retrospective analysis of a consecutive cohort of patients who underwent curative LAR with covering ileostomy for extraperitoneal rectal cancer in two colorectal units was performed. A different policy for scheduling stoma closure was applied between centers. All the data were collected through an electronic database (Microsoft Excel®). Descriptive statistical analysis was performed using Fisher's exact and Student's t test. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was conducted. Two-hundred twenty-two patients were analysed: reversal procedure was carried out in 193 patients, in 29 cases stoma was never closed. The mean interval time from index surgery was 4.9months (Center1: 3 vs. Center2: 7.8). At the univariate analysis, mean age and tumor stage were significantly higher in the "no-reversal" group. Unclosed ostomies were significantly lower in Center 1 than Center 2 (8% vs. 19.6%). At the multivariate analysis female gender, anastomotic leakage and Center 2 had significant higher risk of unclosed ileostomy. Currently, no clinical recommendations have been established and the policy of scheduling stoma reversal is variable. Our study suggests that an established protocol could avoid closure delay, decreasing permanent stomas. Consequently, ileostomy closure should be weighed as standardized step in cancer therapeutic pathway.

Integration of prolapsing technique and one-stitch method of ileostomy during laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a retrospective study.

Prolapsing technique is a type of natural orifice specimen extraction surgery that can overcome the difficulty of precise transection of the distal rectum and subsequent anastomosis in a narrow pelvic space. Currently, protective ileostomy is widely utilized in low anterior resection for low rectal cancer, which may reduce the severe consequences caused by anastomotic leakage. The study aimed to combine the prolapsing technique with a one-stitch method of ileostomy and evaluate the surgical outcomes. A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients with low rectal cancer who underwent protective loop ileostomy in laparoscopic low anterior resection between January 2019 and December 2022. The patients were divided into prolapsing technique combined with the one-stitch method of ileostomy (PO) group and traditional method (TM) group, and the intraoperative details and early postoperative outcomes of the two groups were measured. A total of 70 patients met the inclusion criteria, including 30 patients who underwent PO and 40 patients who underwent the traditional procedure. The PO group had a shorter total operative time than the TM group (197.8 ± 43.4 vs. 218.3 ± 40.6 min, P = 0.047). The time of intestine function recovery in the PO group was shorter than that in the TM group (24.6 ± 3.8 vs. 32.7 ± 5.4 h, P < 0.001). Compared with the TM group, the average VAS score was significantly lower in the PO group (P < 0.001). The incidence of anastomotic leakage in the PO group was significantly lower than that in the TM group (P = 0.034). The operative time of loop ileostomy was 2.0 ± 0.6 min in the PO group, which was significantly less than 15.1 ± 2.9 min in the TM group. Skin irritation was observed in 2 patients in the PO group and 10 patients in the TM group; therefore, there was a significant difference (P = 0.044). This method is safe and feasible, which reduces the technical difficulty and achieves rapid postoperative recovery with few complications.

Risk factors of acute renal failure in patients with protective ileostomy after rectal cancer surgery

BackgroundDespite the potential benefits of protective ileostomy in rectal surgery, diverting loop ileostomy construction is not free of specific medical consequences implying unplanned hospital readmissions. The most common reason for readmission in these patients is a dehydration with a prevalence of acute renal failure (ARF) of 20%. The objective of this study was to establish the predictive factors of ARF in patients with protective ileostomy after surgery for rectal cancer from a bicentric study.Methodswe conducted a bicentric retrospective cohort study to identify the risk factor of ARF. This study was carried out on 277 patients operated for rectal cancer with necessity of a protective ileostomy during the study period. ARF was measured at any endpoint between ileostomy creation and reversal. Multiple logistic regressions were performed to identify independent risk factors.ResultsA total of 277 patients were included, and 18% (n = 50) were readmitted for ARF. In multivariate logistic regression, increased age (OR 1.02, p = 0.01), Psychiatric diseases (OR 4.33, p = 0.014), Angiotensin II receptor blockers (OR 5.15, p < 0.001) and the ASA score ≥ 3 (OR 9.5, p < 0.001) were significantly associated with ARF.ConclusionAcute renal failure is a prevalent and significant event in the postoperative course of ileostomy patients. Patients at risk should be risk stratified before discharge and targeted for intensive preventive measures.