Early postoperative outcomes of diverting loop ileostomy closure surgery following laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery.
Diverting loop ileostomy
Ileostomy closure
Laparoscopy
Journal
Surgical endoscopy
ISSN: 1432-2218
Titre abrégé: Surg Endosc
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8806653
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2021
06 2021
Historique:
received:
16
10
2019
accepted:
20
05
2020
pubmed:
28
5
2020
medline:
30
9
2021
entrez:
28
5
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Although diverting loop ileostomy (DLI) formation reduces the consequences of anastomotic leak and may also decrease the incidence of this severe complication, DLI closure can result in significant complications. The laparoscopic approach in colorectal surgery has numerous benefits, including reduced length of stay (LOS), less wound infection, and better cosmesis. The aim of this study was to determine whether a laparoscopic approach at the time of the ileostomy creation has a beneficial effect on the outcomes of ileostomy closure. A retrospective analysis of an IRB-approved prospective database was performed for all patients who underwent DLI closure between 2010 and 2017. Patients' demographics, operative reports, and postoperative course were reviewed. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS software and included descriptive statistics, Chi-square for categorical variables, and Student's t tests for continuous variables. Skewed variables were compared using the non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test. Regression analysis for overall complications and LOS were preformed to further assess the impact of laparoscopy. We identified 795 patients (363 females) who underwent DLI reversal surgery. The surgical approach in the index operation was laparoscopy in 65% of patients. Conversion to laparotomy at the ileostomy closure occurred in 6.1% of patients. The overall complication rate was lower and the LOS was shorter for patients who underwent DLI closure following laparoscopic surgery. Laparoscopy at the index operation was also associated with a lower incidence of postoperative ileus and a lower estimated blood loss (EBL) at the time of DLI reversal. Multivariate regression analysis found laparoscopy to have significant benefits compared to laparotomy for overall complications and for LOS. Ileostomy closure following laparoscopic colorectal surgery offers benefits including reductions in LOS and overall complications.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Although diverting loop ileostomy (DLI) formation reduces the consequences of anastomotic leak and may also decrease the incidence of this severe complication, DLI closure can result in significant complications. The laparoscopic approach in colorectal surgery has numerous benefits, including reduced length of stay (LOS), less wound infection, and better cosmesis. The aim of this study was to determine whether a laparoscopic approach at the time of the ileostomy creation has a beneficial effect on the outcomes of ileostomy closure.
METHODS
A retrospective analysis of an IRB-approved prospective database was performed for all patients who underwent DLI closure between 2010 and 2017. Patients' demographics, operative reports, and postoperative course were reviewed. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS software and included descriptive statistics, Chi-square for categorical variables, and Student's t tests for continuous variables. Skewed variables were compared using the non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test. Regression analysis for overall complications and LOS were preformed to further assess the impact of laparoscopy.
RESULTS
We identified 795 patients (363 females) who underwent DLI reversal surgery. The surgical approach in the index operation was laparoscopy in 65% of patients. Conversion to laparotomy at the ileostomy closure occurred in 6.1% of patients. The overall complication rate was lower and the LOS was shorter for patients who underwent DLI closure following laparoscopic surgery. Laparoscopy at the index operation was also associated with a lower incidence of postoperative ileus and a lower estimated blood loss (EBL) at the time of DLI reversal. Multivariate regression analysis found laparoscopy to have significant benefits compared to laparotomy for overall complications and for LOS.
CONCLUSION
Ileostomy closure following laparoscopic colorectal surgery offers benefits including reductions in LOS and overall complications.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32458288
doi: 10.1007/s00464-020-07662-w
pii: 10.1007/s00464-020-07662-w
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2509-2514Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Références
Huser N, Michalski CW, Erkan M et al (2008) Systematic review and meta-analysis of the role of defunctioning stoma in low rectal cancer surgery. Ann Surg 248:52–60
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e318176bf65
pubmed: 18580207
Morton DG, Sebag-Montefiore D (2006) Defunctioning stomas in the treatment of rectal cancer. Br J Surg 93:650–651
doi: 10.1002/bjs.5318
pubmed: 16703623
Tan WS, Tang CL, Shi L, Eu KW (2009) Meta-analysis of defunctioning stomas in low anterior resection for rectal cancer. Br J Surg 96:462–472
doi: 10.1002/bjs.6594
pubmed: 19358171
Marusch F, Koch A, Schmidt U et al (2002) Value of a protective stoma in low anterior resections for rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 45:1164–1171
doi: 10.1007/s10350-004-6384-9
pubmed: 12352230
Dehni N, Schlegel RD, Cunningham C et al (1998) Influence of a defunctioning stoma on leakage rates after low colorectal anastomosis and colonic J pouch-anal anastomosis. Br J Surg 85:1114–1117
doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2168.1998.00790.x
pubmed: 9718009
Van Westreenen HL, Visser A, Tanis PJ, Bemelman WA (2012) Morbidity related to defunctioning ileostomy closure after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis and low colonic anastomosis. Int J Colorectal Dis 27(1):49–54
doi: 10.1007/s00384-011-1276-7
pubmed: 21761119
Hiranyakas A, Rather A, da Silva G, Weiss EG, Wexner SD (2013) Loop ileostomy closure after laparoscopic versus open surgery: is there a difference? Surg Endosc 27:90–94
doi: 10.1007/s00464-012-2422-1
pubmed: 22752281
White I, Jenkins JT, Coomber R, Clark SK, Phillips RK, Kennedy RH (2014) Outcomes of laparoscopic and open restorative proctocolectomy. Br J Surg 101(9):1160–1165
doi: 10.1002/bjs.9535
pubmed: 24916184
Van der Pas MH, Haglind E, Cuesta MA et al (2013) Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer (COLOR II): short-term outcomes of a randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 14:210–218
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70016-0
pubmed: 23395398
Bonjer HJ, Deijen CL, Abis GA et al (2015) A randomized trial of laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer. N Engl J Med 372:1324–1332
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1414882
pubmed: 25830422
Boutros M, Hippalgaonkar N, Silva E, Allende D, Wexner SD, Berho M (2013) Laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer results in higher lymph node yield and better short-term outcomes than open surgery: a large single-center comparative study. Dis Colon Rectum 56:679–688
doi: 10.1097/DCR.0b013e318287c594
pubmed: 23652740
Vennix S, Pelzers L, Bouvy N et al (2014) Laparoscopic versus open total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 15:CD005200
Martínez-Pérez A, Clotilde Carra M, Brunetti F, de’Angelis N (2017) Pathologic outcomes of laparoscopic vs open mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Surg 152:165665
doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2016.5665
Fleshman J, Branda M, Sargent DJ et al (2015) Effect of laparoscopic-assisted resection vs open resection of stage II or III rectal cancer on pathologic outcomes: the ACOSOG Z6051 randomized clinical trial. JAMA 314:1346–1355
doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.10529
pubmed: 26441179
pmcid: 5140087
Dowson HM, Bong J, Lovell DP, Worthington TR, Karanjia ND, Rockall TA (2008) Reduced adhesion formation following laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery. Br J Surg 95:909–914
doi: 10.1002/bjs.6211
pubmed: 18509861
Rosin D, Zmora O, Hoffman A et al (2007) Low incidence of adhesion related bowel obstruction after laparoscopic colorectal surgery. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Technol 17:604–607
doi: 10.1089/lap.2006.0002
Chow A, Tilney HS, Paraskeva P, Jeyarajah S, Zacharakis E, Purkayastha S (2009) The morbidity surrounding reversal of defunctioning ileostomies: a systematic review of 48 studies including 6,107 cases. Int J Colorectal Dis 24:711–723
doi: 10.1007/s00384-009-0660-z
pubmed: 19221766
Sharma A, Deeb AP, Rickles AS, Iannuzzi JC, Monson JRT, Flemming FJ (2012) Closure of defunctioning loop ileostomy is associated with considerable morbidity. Colorectal Dis 15:458–462
doi: 10.1111/codi.12029
Mansfield SD, Jensen C, Phair AS, Kelly OT, Kelly SB (2008) Complications of loop ileostomy closure: a retrospective cohort analysis of 123 patients. World J Surg 32:2101–2106
doi: 10.1007/s00268-008-9669-7
pubmed: 18563482
van Westreenen HL, Visser A, Tanis PJ, Bemelman WA (2012) Morbidity related to defunctioning ileostomy closure after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis and low colonic anastomosis. Int J Colorectal Dis 27:49–54
doi: 10.1007/s00384-011-1276-7
pubmed: 21761119
Mala T, Nesbakken A (2008) Morbidity related to the use of a protective stoma in anterior resection for rectal cancer. Colorectal Dis 10:785–788
doi: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2007.01456.x
pubmed: 18190612
Giannakopoulos GF, Veenhof AA, van der Peet DL, Sietses C, Meijerink WJ, Cuesta MA (2009) Morbidity and complications of protective loop ileostomy. Colorectal Dis 11:609–612
doi: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2008.01690.x
pubmed: 19175642
Man VC, Choi HK, Law WL, Foo DC (2016) Morbidities after closure of ileostomy: analysis of risk factors. Int J Colorectal Dis 31:51–57
doi: 10.1007/s00384-015-2327-2
pubmed: 26245947
Man VCM, Hok Choi K, Law WL, Foo DCC (2016) Morbidities after closure of ileostomy: analysis of risk factors. Int J Colorectal Dis 31:51–57
doi: 10.1007/s00384-015-2327-2
pubmed: 26245947
Nakamura T, Sato T, Naito M et al (2017) Risk factors for complications after diverting ileostomy closure in patients who have undergone rectal cancer surgery. Surg Today 47:1238–1242
doi: 10.1007/s00595-017-1510-1
pubmed: 28364398
Law WI, Chu KW, Ho JW et al (2000) Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision. Am J Surg 179:92–96
doi: 10.1016/S0002-9610(00)00252-X
pubmed: 10773140
Gustafsson CP, Gunnarsson U, Dahlstrand U, Lindforss U (2018) Loop-ileostomy reversal-patient-related characteristics influencing time to closure. Int J Colorectal Dis 33(5):593–600
doi: 10.1007/s00384-018-2994-x
pubmed: 29508050
pmcid: 5899111
Saito Y, Takakura Y, Hinoi T, Egi H, Tashiro H, Ohdan H (2014) Body mass index as a predictor of postoperative complications in loop ileostomy closure after rectal resection in Japanese patients. Hiroshima J Med Sci 63:33–38
pubmed: 25707091
Matthiessen P, Hallbook O, Andersson M et al (2004) Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after anterior resection of the rectum. Colorectal Dis 6:462–469
doi: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2004.00657.x
pubmed: 15521937
Garfinkle R, Savage P, Boutros M et al (2019) Incidence and predictors of postoperative ileus after loop ileostomy closure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 33(8):2430–2443
doi: 10.1007/s00464-019-06794-y
pubmed: 31020433