Prolonged diversion after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis: Is it safe to wait?
closure
ileal pouch-anal anastomosis
ileostomy
reversal
timing
Journal
Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland
ISSN: 1463-1318
Titre abrégé: Colorectal Dis
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100883611
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2023
06 2023
Historique:
revised:
28
11
2022
received:
22
10
2022
accepted:
21
02
2023
medline:
28
6
2023
pubmed:
31
3
2023
entrez:
30
3
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Diverting loop ileostomy reversal (DLI-R) is routinely performed from 2-6 months following ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA). The safety of delayed reversal after IPAA is not well-defined. The aim of this study was to determine if prolonged diversion is associated with adverse outcomes compared to routine closure. Adult patients undergoing primary IPAA with DLI from 2000 to 2021 were included in this retrospective cohort study from our institutional database. Patients were stratified into tertiles based on timing of reversal: Routine (56-116 days), Delayed (117-180 days), or Prolonged (>6 months). Univariate analysis compared categorical variables between groups. Patients reversed at <8 weeks were excluded. In total, 2615 patients underwent DLI-R following IPAA (3-stage 61%, 2-stage 39%; mean age 39.9 years). DLI-R was performed as Routine, Delayed and Prolonged in 1908 (72.9%), 426 (16.4%) and 281 (10.8%), respectively. Overall, DLI-R related complications occurred in 12.4% (n = 324). The complication rate in the Routine group was 11% (n = 210), in the Delayed group was 12.2% (n = 52) and in the Prolonged group was 22.1% (n = 62). Reasons for prolonged diversion in the Prolonged group were complications at the time of IPAA in 207 (73.9%) or patient preference/scheduling in 73 (26.1%). DLI-R >6 months after IPAA due to complications had higher rates of overall complications following ileostomy reversal (OR 2.6, 95% CI 1.85-3.72, p < 0.001) whereas when DLI-R was delayed due to preference/scheduling outcomes were not different than the Routine group (p = 0.28). Prolonged time to ileostomy reversal after IPAA is probably safe without increased risk of complications when due to patient preference.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1187-1193Informations de copyright
© 2023 Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.
Références
Ellebaek MB, Dilling Kjaer M, Spanggaard K, El-Faramawi M, Möller S, Qvist N. Protective loop-ileostomy in ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis - advantages and disadvantages. A retrospective study. Colorectal Dis. 2021;23(1):145-52.
Lovegrove RE, Tilney HS, Remzi FH, Nicholls RJ, Fazio VW, Tekkis PP. To divert or not to divert: a retrospective analysis of variables that influence ileostomy omission in ileal pouch surgery. Arch Surg. 2011;146:82-8.
Weston-Petrides GK, Lovegrove RE, Tilney HS, Heriot AG, Nicholls RJ, Mortensen NJ, et al. Comparison of outcomes after restorative proctocolectomy with or without defunctioning ileostomy. Arch Surg. 2008;143(4):406-12.
Phang PT, Hain JM, Perez-Ramirez JJ, Madoff RD, Gemlo BT. Techniques and complications of ileostomy takedown. Am J Surg. 1999;177(6):463-6.
Richards SJG, Udayasiri DK, Jones IT, Hastie IA, Chandra R, McCormick JJ, et al. Delayed ileostomy closure increases the odds of Clostridium difficile infection. Colorectal Dis. 2021;23:3213-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.15858
Hughes DL, Cornish J, Morris C, LARRIS Trial Management Group. Functional outcome following rectal surgery-predisposing factors for low anterior resection syndrome. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2017;32(5):691-7.
Rockwood TH, Church JM, Fleshman JW, Kane RL, Mavrantonis C, Thorson AG, et al. Patient and surgeon ranking of the severity of symptoms associated with fecal incontinence: the fecal incontinence severity index. Dis Colon Rectum. 1999;42:1525-32.
Walma MS, Kornmann VN, Boerma D, de Roos MA, van Westreenen HL. Predictors of fecal incontinence and related quality of life after a total mesorectal excision with primary anastomosis for patients with rectal cancer. Ann Coloproctol. 2015;31:23-8.
Phatak UR, Kao LS, You YN, Rodriguez-Bigas MA, Skibber JM, Feig BW, et al. Impact of ileostomy-related complications on the multidisciplinary treatment of rectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21:507-12.
Paquette IM, Solan P, Rafferty JF, Ferguson MA, Davis BR. Readmission for dehydration or renal failure after ileostomy creation. Dis Colon Rectum. 2013;56:974-9.
Vaughan-Shaw PG, Gash K, Adams K, Vallance AE, Pilkington SA, Torkington J, et al. Protocol for a multicentre, dual prospective and retrospective cohort study investigating timing of ileostomy closure after anterior resection for rectal cancer: the CLOSurE of ileostomy timing (CLOSE-IT) study. BMJ Open. 2018;8(10):e023305.
Herrle F, Sandra-Petrescu F, Weiss C, Post S, Runkel N, Kienle P. Quality of life and timing of stoma closure in patients with rectal cancer undergoing low anterior resection with diverting stoma: a multicenter longitudinal observational study. Dis Colon Rectum. 2016;59:281-90.
van Westreenen HL, Visser A, Tanis PJ, Bemelman WA. Morbidity related to defunctioning ileostomy closure after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis and low colonic anastomosis. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2012;27:49-54.
Luglio G, Pendlimari R, Holubar SD, Cima RR, Nelson H. Loop ileostomy reversal after colon and rectal surgery: a single institutional 5-year experience in 944 patients. Arch Surg. 2011;146:1191-6.
Snelgrove R, Brown CJ, O'Connor BI, Huang H, Victor JC, Gryfe R, et al. Proctocolectomy for colorectal cancer-is the ileal pouch anal anastomosis a safe alternative to permanent ileostomy? Int J Colorectal Dis. 2014;29(12):1485-91.
Gorfine SR, Harris MT, Bub DS, Bauer JJ. Restorative proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis complicated by colorectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2004;47(8):1377-85.
Gorgun E, Remzi FH. Complications of ileoanal pouches. Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2004;17(1):43-55.
Ng KS, Gonsalves SJ, Sagar PM. Ileal-anal pouches: a review of its history, indications, and complications. World J Gastroenterol. 2019;25(31):4320-42.
Barnes EL, Herfarth HH, Kappelman MD, Zhang X, Lightner A, Long MD, et al. Incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of pouchitis and pouch-related complications in patients with ulcerative colitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021;19(8):1583-91.
Farouk R, Pemberton JH, Wolff BG, Dozois RR, Browning S, Larson D. Functional outcomes after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for chronic ulcerative colitis. Ann Surg. 2000;231(6):919-26.
Benlice C, Stocchi L, Costedio M, Gorgun E, Hull T, Kessler H, et al. Laparoscopic IPAA is not associated with decreased rates of incisional hernia and small-bowel obstruction when compared with open technique: long-term follow-up of a case-matched study. Dis Colon Rectum. 2015;58(3):314-20.
Flynn J, Larach JT, Kong JCH, Warrier SK, Heriot A. Robotic versus laparoscopic ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA): a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2021;36(7):1345-56.
Vigorita V, Cano-Valderrama O, Celentano V, Vinci D, Millán M, Spinelli A, et al. Inflammatory bowel diseases benefit from enhanced recovery after surgery [ERAS] protocol: a systematic review with practical implications. J Crohns Colitis. 2021;16:845-51. https://doi.org/10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjab209
Kobayashi T, Siegmund B, Le Berre C, Wei SC, Ferrante M, Shen B, et al. Ulcerative colitis. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2020;6(1):74.
Garfinkle R, Savage P, Boutros M, Landry T, Reynier P, Morin N, et al. Incidence and predictors of postoperative ileus after loop ileostomy closure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc. 2019;33:2430-43.