The efficacy of ileostomy after laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: a meta-analysis

Background Protective ileostomy is always applied to avoid clinically significant anastomotic leakage and other postoperative complications for patients receiving laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. However, whether it is necessary to perform the ileostomy is still controversial. This meta-analysis aims to analyze the efficacy of ileostomy on laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. Methods Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science, and PubMed were applied for systematic search of all relevant literature, updated to May 07, 2021. Studies compared patients with and without ileostomy for laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. We applied Review Manager software to perform this meta-analysis. The quality of the non-randomized controlled trials was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS), and the randomized studies were assessed using the Jadad scale. Results We collected a total of 1203 references, and seven studies were included using the research methods. The clinically significant anastomotic leakage rate was significantly lower in ileostomy group (27/567, 4.76%) than that in non-ileostomy group (54/525, 10.29%) (RR = 0.47, 95% CI 0.30–0.73, P for overall effect = 0.0009, P for heterogeneity = 0.18, I2 = 32%). However, the postoperative hospital stay, reoperation, wound infection, and operation time showed no significant difference between the ileostomy and non-ileostomy groups. Conclusion The results demonstrated that protective ileostomy could decrease the clinically significant anastomotic leakage rate for patients undergoing laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. However, ileostomy has no effect on postoperative hospital stay, reoperation, wound infection, and operation time. The efficacy of ileostomy after laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: a meta-analysis.

Hidden ileostomy as a rescue procedure in major colorectal surgeries: a novel technique to prevent re-laparotomy in anastomotic leak cases

Background Anastomotic leak is a major cause of morbidity and mortality of patients worldwide, and it has remained stable over the last years. Routine construction of protective ileostomy is associated with stoma and negatively affects patients’ quality of life. Developing another technique to minimize those drawbacks with at least the same clinical success can help patients with anastomotic leak. We present the novel technique “Hidden Ileostomy” as an alternative to protective ileostomy that can achieve that balance. Materials and methods Eight patients presented to our department underwent the novel technique “Hidden Ileostomy” as a rescue procedure for different reasons. The associated risk factors and clinical scenarios, together with the follow-up data, are presented. Results For the eight cases in this study, one patient was ASA grade 1, 3 patients were classified as ASA grade 2, and 4 were grade 3. The mean ± SD operative time and blood loss were 196.3 ± 16.4 min and 325 ± 204.6 ml, respectively. The hidden ileostomy was removed after an average of 8 days. Only Case 6 reported an anastomotic leak on a postoperative day 10. Conclusion A hidden ileostomy is an alternative and feasible technique in selected cases in colorectal surgery. This technique could be adopted in our practice instead of routine instruction of ileostomy, especially in the equivocal anastomosis.

Diversion Colitis and Probiotic Stimulation: Effects of Bowel Stimulation Prior to Ileostomy Closure

Background: Diversion colitis is a non-specific inflammation of a defunctionalised segment of the colon after a temporary stoma has been performed. This inflammation is associated with a change in the colonic flora.Aim: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of preoperative stimulation of the efferent loop with probiotics prior to closure of the protective ileostomy in patients operated on colorectal carcinoma and its effect on diversion colitis. A prospective, randomised, double-blind, controlled study is carried out.Methods: Patients who underwent surgery for colorectal carcinoma with protective ileostomy pending reconstructive surgery and with diversion colitis as diagnosis are included. Randomised and divided into two groups. Histological and endoscopic changes were evaluated after stimulation, after restorative surgery and during the short-term follow-up after surgery.Results: Patients in CG were distributed according to the endoscopic index of severity in pre-stimulation/post-stimulation as follows: severe n = 9/9 (25.7%), moderate n = 23/23 (65.7%), and mild n = 3/3 (8.6%); compared to the distribution in SG, severe n = 9/0 (26.5/0%), moderate n = 23/3 (67.6/8.8%), mild n = 2/19 (5.9/55.9%) and normal colonoscopy in 0/12 patients (0/35.3%).Conclusion: Probiotic stimulation of the efferent loop is a safe and effective method, managing to reduce both macroscopic and microscopic colitis, as well as a decrease in symptoms in the short term after reconstructive surgery.

Serological Biomarkers and Diversion Colitis: Changes after Stimulation with Probiotics

Diversion colitis is a non-specific inflammation of a defunctionalised segment of the colon after a temporary stoma has been performed. This inflammation is associated with an alteration of certain inflammatory serum markers. The aims of this study were, firstly, to evaluate the modification of inflammatory biomarkers after stimulation with probiotics prior to closure of the protective ileostomy. Secondly, to identify if a relationship could be established between the severity of diversion colitis and the alteration of inflammatory biomarkers in the blood. A prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled study was conducted. Patients who underwent surgery for colorectal carcinoma with protective ileostomy between January 2017 and December 2018 were included, pending reconstructive surgery and with diversion colitis as diagnosis. The sample was randomly divided into a group stimulated with probiotics (SG) (n = 34) and a control group (CG) (n = 35). Histological and endoscopic changes were evaluated after stimulation, after restorative surgery and during the short-term follow-up after surgery, including the correlation with pro-inflammatory biomarkers in blood. As main findings, a significant decrease in C-reactive protein (CRP), Neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (NLR ratio), and monocyte/lymphocyte ratio (LMR ratio) was observed in the SG versus the CG with a p < 0.001. A significant increase in transferrin values and in the platelet/lymphocyte ratio (PLR) was observed in the SG versus CG after stimulation with probiotics with a p < 0.001. A normalisation of CRP and transferrin levels was observed in the third month of follow-up after closure ileostomy, and NLR, LMR and PLR ratios were equal in both groups. Decreased modified Glasgow prognostic score was found in SG compared to CG after probiotic stimulation (p < 0.001). The endoscopic and histological severity of diversion colitis is associated with a greater alteration of blood inflammatory biomarkers. The stimulation with probiotics prior to reconstructive surgery promotes an early normalization of these parameters.

Diversion Colitis: Macro and Microscopic Findings after Probiotics Stimulation

The use of a loop ileostomy as the defunctioning procedure of choice to protect a distal colonic anastomosis causes histological and endoscopic changes in the intestinal mucosal architecture, which have been related to chronic inflammation and changes in the microflora that consequently impact the intestinal structure and function following fecal stream diversion. The aim of this study was to evaluate the histological and endoscopic changes on the colonic mucosa in patients with diversion colitis after stimulation of the efferent loop with probiotics prior to closure of the protective ileostomy. A prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled study was designed. All patients who underwent surgery for colorectal carcinoma with protective ileostomy between January 2017 and December 2018 were included. These patients were pending reconstructive surgery and were diagnosed with endoscopic and histological diversion colitis. Divided into two groups, a group stimulated with probiotics (SG) and a control group (CG). 34 cases and 35 controls were included in the study. Histological and endoscopic changes were evaluated after stimulation, after restorative surgery and during the short-term follow-up after surgery. A decrease in endoscopic pathological findings (mucosal friability, mucous erosions, polyps, edema, erythema and stenosis) and in histological findings (follicular hyperplasia, eosinophils, cryptic abscesses, lymphocyte infiltration, plasma cell infiltration and architecture distortion) was observed in SG. These results were statistically significant with a p < 0.001. The stimulation of the efferent loop of the ileostomy in patients with diversion colitis produced a decrease of the endoscopic and histological severity of colitis in the short term.

Transrectal endoscopic drainage with vacuum-assisted therapy in patients with anastomotic leaks following rectal cancer resection

Background Surgery is the gold standard for the treatment of malignant tumors of the rectum. Intestinal anastomotic leakage remains a serious complication of colorectal surgery. The efficacy and safety of transrectal endoscopic drainage by vacuum therapy in patients with intestinal anastomotic leakage after surgical treatment of middle and distal rectal tumors were assessed. Methods Prospective analysis of treatment outcomes among patients undergoing surgery for middle and distal rectal tumors at the Department of General, Gastroenterological, and Oncological Surgery of the Ludwik Rydygier Collegium Medicum in Bydgoszcz and Nicolaus Copernicus University in Torun from 2016 to 2019 was conducted. Results Seventy-nine patients with middle and distal rectal tumors underwent laparoscopic resection. Intestinal anastomotic leak was identified in 18 (22.79%) patients [all men, mean age 61.39 (43–86) years] during the postoperative period. Primary protective ileostomy was performed in 8/18 (44.44%) patients. All 18 patients were treated with endoluminal vacuum therapy via transrectal endoscopic drainage. The mean time from surgery to the diagnosis of leakage and initiation of endoscopic treatment was 16 (3–728) days. The mean number of endoscopic procedures per patient was 6 (1–11). The mean duration of endoscopic treatment was 22 (4–43) days. Complications of endotherapy occurred in 2/18 (11.11%) patients treated endoscopically for bleeding from the abscess cavity. Success of endoluminal vacuum therapy was achieved in 17/18 (94.44%) patients. Moreover, 5/18 (27.78%) patients required ileostomy during the endoscopic treatment. The mean follow-up period was 368 (118–724) days. Long-term success of transrectal endoscopic drainage using vacuum-assisted therapy was achieved in 15/18 (83.33%) patients. Conclusions Endoscopic rectal drainage using vacuum-assisted therapy is an effective and safe minimally invasive treatment in patients with intestinal anastomotic leaks following resection procedures within the middle and distal rectum.

Protective ileostomy does not prevent anastomotic leakage after anterior resection of rectal cancer

Objective To explore whether protective ileostomy is beneficial in preventing anastomotic leakage after anterior resection of rectal cancer. Methods A total of 347 patients underwent anterior resection of rectal cancer in our hospital. Ninety-five patients were treated with protective ileostomy (treatment group), and 252 patients were not (control group). The incidences of anastomotic leakage and permanent stoma were compared between the two groups. Results The overall incidences of anastomotic leakage were 6.32% (6/95) and 8.73% (22/252) in the treatment group and control group, respectively. In the cohort of patients who underwent neoadjuvant radiotherapy, the incidence of anastomotic leakage was 5.88% (2/34) and 12.0% (3/25) in the treatment group and control group, respectively. Logistic regression showed that the incidence of anastomotic leakage was not statistically significant. However, diabetes and the anastomotic height significantly affected the occurrence of anastomotic leakage. The permanent stoma rate was 6.42% (6/95) and 5.95% (15/252) in the treatment group and control group, respectively. Conclusion Protective ileostomy did not show a significant advantage in reducing the incidence of postoperative anastomotic leakage in patients with rectal cancer, and it may lead to a permanent stoma.