Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Surgical Endoscopy
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy 11/2016

01-11-2016

Diverting ileostomy in laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: high price of protection

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 11/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Anastomotic leakage presents the most feared complication after low anterior resection (LAR). A proximal diversion of the gastrointestinal tract is recommended to avoid septic complications of anastomotic leakage. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the benefits and risks of diverting ileostomy (DI) created during laparoscopic LAR because of low rectal cancer.

Methods

This was a retrospective clinical cohort study conducted to assess outcomes of laparoscopic LAR with/without DI in a single institution within a 6-year period.

Results

In total, 151 patients were enrolled in the study (73 patients without DI, 78 patients with DI). There were no significant differences between both groups regarding demographic and clinical features. Overall 30-day morbidity rates were significantly lower in patients without DI (23.3 vs. 42.3 %, P = 0.013). Symptomatic anastomotic leakage occurred more frequently in patients without DI (9.6 vs. 2.5 %, P = 0.090); surgical intervention was needed in 6.8 % of patients without DI. Post-operative hospital stay was significantly longer in the group of patients with DI (11.3 ± 8.5 vs. 8.1 ± 6.9 days, P = 0.013). Stoma-related complications occurred in 42 of 78 (53.8 %) patients with DI; some patients had more than one complication. Acute surgery was needed in 9 patients (11.5 %) because of DI-related complications. Small bowel obstruction due to DI semi-rotation around its longitudinal axis was seen in 3 patients (3.8 %) and presents a distinct complication of DI laparoscopic construction. The mean interval between LAR and DI reversal was more than 8 months; only 19.2 % of patients were reversed without delay (≤4 months). Morbidity after DI reversal was 16.6 %; re-laparotomy was necessary in 2.5 % of patients.

Conclusions

The present study indicates that DI protects low rectal anastomosis from septic complications at a cost of many stoma-related complications, substantial risk of acute surgery necessity and long stoma periods coupled with decreased quality of life.
Literature
1.
How P, Shihab O, Tekkis P, Brown G, Quirke P, Heald R, Moran B (2011) A systematic review of cancer related patient outcomes after anterior resection and abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer in the total mesorectal excision era. Surg Oncol 20:149–155CrossRef
2.
Herzog T, Belyaev O, Chromik AM, Weyhe D, Mueller CA, Munding J, Tannapfel A, Uhl W, Seelig MH (2010) TME quality in rectal cancer surgery. Eur J Med Res 15:292–296CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
Ihnát P, Delongová P, Horáček J, Ihnát Rudinská L, Vávra P, Zonča P (2015) The impact of standard protocol implementation on the quality of colorectal cancer pathology reporting. World J Surg 39(1):259–265CrossRefPubMed
4.
Paun BC, Cassie S, MacLean AR, Dixon E, Buie D (2010) Postoperative complications following surgery for rectal cancer. Ann Surg 251:807–818CrossRefPubMed
5.
Mirnezami A, Mirnezami R, Chandrakumaran K, Sasapu K, Sagar P, Finan P (2011) Increased local recurrence and reduced survival from colorectal cancer following anastomotic leak. Ann Surg 253:890–899CrossRefPubMed
6.
Matthiessen P, Hallbook O, Andersson M, Rutegård J, Sjödahl R (2004) Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after anterior resection of the rectum. Color Dis 6:462–469CrossRef
7.
Marusch F, Koch A, Schmidt U, Geibetaler S, Dralle H, Saeger HD, Wolff S, Nestler G, Pross M, Gastinger I, Lippert H (2002) Value of a protective stoma in low anterior resections for rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 45:1164–1171CrossRefPubMed
8.
Gastinger I, Marusch F, Steinert R, Wolff S, Koeckerling F, Lippert H (2005) Protective defunctioning stoma in low anterior resection for rectal carcinoma. Br J Surg 92:1137–1142CrossRefPubMed
9.
Montedori A, Cirocchi R, Farinella E, Sciannameo F, Abraha I (2010) Covering ileo- or colostomy in anterior resection for rectal carcinoma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. doi:10.​1002/​14651858
10.
Hűser N, Michalski CW, Erkan M, Schuster T, Rosengerg R, Kleeff J, Friess H (2008) Systematic review and meta-analysis of the role of defunctioning stoma in low rectal cancer surgery. Ann Surg 248:52–60CrossRefPubMed
11.
Jafari MD, Halabi WJ, Jafari F, Nguyen VQ, Stamos MJ, Carmichael JC, Mills SD (2013) Morbidity of diverting ileostomy for rectal cancer: analysis of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Ann Surg 79(10):1034–1039
12.
Hanna MH, Vinci A, Pigazzi A (2015) Diverting ileostomy in colorectal surgery: When is it necessary? Langengecks Arch Surg 400:145–152CrossRef
13.
Nastro P, Knowles CH, McGrath A, Heyman B, Porrett TRC, Lunniss PJ (2010) Complications of intestinal stomas. Br J Surg 97:1885–1889CrossRefPubMed
14.
Guillou PJ, Quirke P, Thorpe H, Walker J, Jayne DG, Smith AM, Heath RM, Brown JM (2005) Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 365:1718–1726CrossRefPubMed
15.
Abraham NS, Young JM, Solomon MJ (2004) Meta-analysis of short term outcomes after laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer. Br J Surg 91:1111–1124CrossRefPubMed
16.
Janson M, Lindholm E, Anderberg B, Haglind E (2007) Randomized trial of health-related quality of life after open and laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer. Surg Endosc 21:747–753CrossRefPubMed
17.
Ihnát P, Martínek L, Mitták M, Vávra P, Ihnát Rudinská L, Zonča P (2014) Quality of life after laparoscopic and open resection of colorectal cancer. Dig Surg 31(3):161–168CrossRefPubMed
18.
Wong NY, Eu KW (2005) A defunctioning ileostomy does not prevent clinical anastomotic leak after a low anterior resection: a prospective, comparative study. Dis Colon Rectum 48:2076–2079CrossRefPubMed
19.
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
Rahbari NN, Weitz J, Hohenberger W, Heald RJ, Moran B, Ulrich A, Holm T, Wong WD, Tier E, Moriya Y, Laurberg S, den Dulk M, van de Velde C, Büchler MW (2010) Definition and grading of anastomotic leakage following anterior resection of the rectum: a proposal by the International Study Group of Rectal Cancer. Surgery 147(3):339–351CrossRefPubMed
21.
Floodeen H, Linggren R, Matthiessen P (2013) When are defunctioning stomas in rectal cancer surgery really reversed? Results from a population-based single center experience. Scand J Surg 102(4):246–250CrossRefPubMed
22.
Seo SI, Yu CS, Kim GS, Lee JL, Yoon YS, Kim CW, Lim SB, Kim JC (2013) The role of diverting stoma after an ultra-low anterior resection for rectal cancer. Ann Coloproctol 29(2):66–71CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
Poon RT, Chu KW, Ho JW, Chan CW, Law WL, Wong J (1999) Prospective evaluation of selective defunctioning stoma for low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision. World J Surg 23:463–467CrossRefPubMed
24.
Nurkin S, Kakarla VR, Ruiz DE, Cance WG, Tiszenkel HI (2013) The role of faecal diversion in low rectal cancer: a review of 1791 patients having rectal resection with anastomosis for cancer, with and without a proximal stoma. Color Dis 15(6):e309–e316CrossRef
25.
Leester B, Asztalos I, Polnyib C (2002) Septic complications after low anterior rectal resection—Is diverting stoma still justified? Acta Chir Iugosl 49:67–71CrossRefPubMed
26.
Rullier E, Laurent C, Garrelon JL, Michel P, Saric J, Parneix M (1998) Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after resection of rectal cancer. Br J Surg 85:355–358CrossRefPubMed
27.
Snijders HS, van Leersum NJ, Henneman D, de Vries AC, Tollenaar RA, Stiggelbout AM, Wouters MW, Dekker JW (2015) Optimal treatment strategy in rectal cancer surgery: Should we be cowboys or chickens? Ann Surg Oncol 22:3582–3589CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
29.
Harris DA, Egbeare D, Jones S, Benjamin H, Woodward A, Foster ME (2005) Complications and mortality following stoma formation. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 87(6):427–431CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
30.
Gessler B, Haglind E, Angenete E (2012) Loop ileostomies in colorectal cancer patients—morbidity and risk factors for nonreversal. J Surg Res 178(2):708–714CrossRefPubMed
31.
Åkesson O, Syk I, Lindmark G, Buchwald P (2012) Morbidity related to defunctioning loop ileostomy in low anterior resection. Int J Colorectal Dis 27(12):1619–1623CrossRefPubMed
32.
Robertson I, Leung E, Hughes D, Spiers M, Donnelly L, Mackenzie I, Macdonald A (2005) Prospective analysis of soma-related complications. Color Dis 7(3):279–285CrossRef
33.
Waterland P, Goonetilleke K, Naumann DN, Sutcliff M, Soliman F (2015) Defunctioning ileostomy reversal rates and reasons for delayed reversal: Does delay impact on complications of ileostomy reversal? A study of 170 defunctioning ileostomies. J Clin Med Res 7(9):685–689CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
34.
Sier MF, van Gelder L, Ubbink DT, Bemelman WA, Oostenbroek RJ (2015) Factors affecting timing of closure and non-reversal of temporary ileostomies. Int J Colorectal Dis 30:1185–1192CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
35.
Phatak UR, Kao LS, You YN, Rodriguez-Bigas MA, Skibber JM, Feig BW, Nguyen S, Chang GJ (2014) The impact of ileostomy-related complications on the multidisciplinary treatment of rectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 21(2):507–512CrossRefPubMed
36.
Chow A, Tilnea HS, Paraskeve P, Jeyarajah S, Zacharakis E, Purkayastha S (2009) The morbidity surrounding reversal of defunctioning ileostomies: a systematic review of 48 studies including 6107 cases. Int J Colorectal Dis 24:711–723CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Diverting ileostomy in laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: high price of protection
Publication date
01-11-2016
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 11/2016
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-4811-3

Other articles of this Issue 11/2016

Surgical Endoscopy 11/2016 Go to the issue

New Technology

Use of the Ambu® aScope 2TM in laparoscopic common bile duct exploration

Erratum

Erratum to: Strategies of laparoscopic thyroidectomy for treatment of substernal goiter via areola approach

OriginalPaper

Potential sexual function improvement by using transanal mesorectal approach for laparoscopic low rectal cancer excision

OriginalPaper

Prospective, randomized and controlled trial on magnesium sulfate administration during laparoscopic gastrectomy: effects on surgical space conditions and recovery profiles

OriginalPaper

Effectivity of laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (TAPP) in daily clinical practice: early and long-term result

OriginalPaper

Insulation failure in electrosurgery instrumentation: a prospective evaluation