De-functioning loop ileostomy: creating more problems from solving one?
PDF

Keywords

Ileostomy

Abstract

Background and aims: De-functioning loop ileostomies are used currently in anterior resection to reduce the consequences of anastomotic leak. However, this practice remains controversial as the complication associated with the de-functioning stoma has been overlooked. The objectives of this paper were to study the complication associated with de-functioning loop ileostomy in the patient undergoing an anterior resection.

Method: Patient sample identification obtained from local colorectal registry and data reviewed retrospectively. Only anterior resection with or without de-functioning loop ileostomy for the indication of rectal cancer or pre-cancerous polyps were included. 150 patients satisfied the inclusion criteria. Statistical analysis of Chi-square test was applied for twogroup comparisons of categorical data and Mann Whitneyfor continuous numerical variables.

Results: Overall, 50% of 74 patients in the stoma group had stoma-related complication either acutely or later that resulted in unplanned re-admission with re-admission rate of 17.6%. Closure rate was 77%, with a mean interval of 7.4 months. A further 28% (16 of 57) of the reversed groupexperienced complications. Combined length of stay after anterior resection and reversal surgery was 19.3 days vs. 8.1 days in the non-stoma group (p=0.001).

Conclusion: The creation of de-functioning loop ileostomy is associated with a significantly increased risk of stoma-related morbidity with low anterior resection. The perceived benefits and risks of routine creation of de-functioning loop ileostomy in anterior resection should be reconsidered while planning for surgery and only selective of suitable candidates that are of high risk of severe anastomotic leak.

https://doi.org/10.48037/mbmj.v8i11.1331
PDF

References

Bowel cancer statistics. Cancer Research UK. 2021 (accessed on 27 April 2021). Available from: https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/bowel-cancer.

Law WL, Chu KW. Anterior resection for rectal cancer with mesorectal excision: a prospective evaluation of 622 patients. Ann Surg. 2004;240(2):260-8. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000133185.23514.32.

Karanjia ND, Schache DJ, North WR, Heald RJ. ‘Close shave’ in anterior resection. Br J Surg. 1990;77(5):510-2. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.1800770512.

Cong ZJ, Hu LH, Bian ZQ, et al. Systematic review of anastomotic leakage rate according to an international grading system following anterior resection for rectal cancer. PLoS One 2013;8(9):e75519. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0075519.

van Helsdingen CP, Jongen AC, de Jonge WJ, Bouvy ND, Derikx JP. Consensus on the definition of colorectal anastomotic leakage: a modified Delphi study. World J Gastroenterol. 2020;26(23):3293-3303. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v26.i23.3293

Tan WS, Tang CL, Shi L, Eu KW. Meta-analysis of defunctioning stomas in low anterior resection for rectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2009;96(5):462-72. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.6594.

Austin SR, Wong YN, Uzzo RG, Beck JR, Egleston BL. Why summary comorbidity measures such as the Charlson Comorbidity Index and Elixhauser Score work. Med Care. 2015;53(9):e65-72. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0b013e318297429c.

Baker ML, Williams RN, Nightingale JM. Causes and management of a high-output stoma. Colorectal Dis. 2011;13(2):191-7. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-1318.2009.02107.x.