Early Closure of Defunctioning Loop Ileostomy: Is It Beneficial for the Patient? A Meta-analysis

  • Benjamin Menahem
  • Jean Lubrano
  • Antoine Vallois
  • Arnaud Alves
Scientific Review

Abstract

Objective

To perform a meta-analysis to answer the question, whether early closure (EC) of defunctioning loop ileostomy may be beneficial for patient as compared with late closure (LC) without exceeding the risk of surgical-related morbidity.

Design

Medline and the Cochrane Trials Register were searched for trials published up to November 2016 comparing EC (defined as ≤14 days from the index operation in which the ileostomy was performed) versus LC for stoma closure after rectal surgery. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.0. Inclusion criteria

Main outcome measures

Overall morbidity rate, anastomotic leakage rate, and wound infection rate within 90 days after elective surgery.

Results

Six studies were included and analyzed, yielding 570 patients (252 in EC group and 318 in LC). Meta-analysis showed no significant difference in the overall morbidity rate between the EC and LC groups (OR 0.63; 95% CI, 0.22–1.78; P = 0.38). Despite a significant higher wound infection rate of stoma site (OR 3.83; 95% CI 2.14–6.86; P < 0.00001), meta-analysis showed no significant difference in the anastomotic leakage rate between the EC and LC groups (OR 0.63; 95% CI 0.22–1.78; P = 0.38). Moreover, both stoma-related complications (OR 0.46; 95% CI 0.24–0.86; P = 0.02) and small bowel obstruction rates (OR 0.11; 95% CI 0.06–0.20; P < 0.00001) were significantly lower in the EC group than in the LC group, respectively.

Limitations

Heterogeneity of the studies

Conclusion

This meta-analysis suggests that EC of a defunctioning loop ileostomy is effective and safe in careful selected patients without increasing overall postoperative complications. This promising strategy should be proposed in patients in order to reduce stoma-related complications.

Introduction

Fecal diversion using a defunctioning loop ileostomy is usually performed as a means to protect low extraperitoneal colorectal anastomosis “after partial mesorectal excision or total mesorectal excision” or colo-anal anastomosis [1, 2, 3], and to alleviate the consequences of anastomotic leakage, such as reoperation [4, 5, 6, 7]. Defunctioning loop ileostomy is usually preferred to colostomy by most surgeons because it is easy to construct and close, and provides excellent deviation of the fecal matter without creating a risk of injury to the pericolic vascular arcade. While most patients will keep their stoma for at least 3 months, ileostomy-related complications (i.e., dermatitis, parastomal infection, electrolyte imbalance, dehydration from high stoma output, renal insufficiency, stenosis, retraction, necrosis, prolapse, stricture, or readmission) will occur in approximately half of the patients [8, 9, 10, 11]. Thus, it still remains a major psychological handicap (in relation to altered body schema, odor, and uncontrolled emissions) and causes significant physical stress, leading to an adverse effect on the quality of life [12]. Furthermore, the scheduled stoma closure may be also delayed by the need to wait for the completion of postoperative adjuvant therapy [13].

While the feasibility of early stoma closure (EC) (within 2 weeks of the index operation) has been reported by several pilot studies [14, 15, 16] with promising results, this is not common practice. The available literature is scarce and unclear about the optimal timing for reversal of defunctioning loop ileostomy. One prospective randomized multicenter trial with 186 carefully selected patients demonstrated that early stoma closure on day 8 was safe, with no reported increase in the perioperative complication rate [17]. Despite the higher rate of wound complications (including the stoma site), EC was associated with lower ileostomy-related complications and small bowel obstruction rates. In a systematic review of the literature [18], no conclusion was drawn because of heterogeneity between the published studies. Since then, three additional studies [19, 20, 21] have provided evidence of the feasibility of EC of defunctioning loop ileostomy.

Given this information, we decided to perform a meta-analysis to answer the question of whether EC of defunctioning loop ileostomy may be beneficial for patients in minimizing stoma-related complications without excessive risk of surgery-related morbidity (i.e., overall morbidity and anastomotic leakage).

Materials and methods

Search strategy

We performed a systematic review of the literature published up to November 2016 by searching abstracts in Medline, the Cochrane database, and the Cochrane Clinical Trials Registry. The medical subject headings (MeSH) and keywords searched for individually and in combination were as follows: “ileostomy,” “surgical stoma,” “defunctioning stoma,” “early,” “reversal,” “closure,” and “close.” Bibliographies cited in an identified article were also searched manually to retrieve other suitable studies. We also screened the references of the relevant studies to check for potentially relevant articles.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Criteria for eligibility included in this meta-analysis were: (1) studies that compared EC (defined as ≤14 days from the index operation in which the ileostomy was performed) versus late stoma closure (LC) (defined as at least 8 weeks after rectal surgery); (2) studies that reported at least one of the outcome measures (i.e., death and postoperative complications such as re-intervention, small bowel obstruction/ileus, anastomotic leak, global wound infection, and stoma-related complications). These items are defined below. Types of studies included were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), case-matched studies, and comparative prospective studies.

Exclusion criteria included: (1) studies that involved pediatric patients (<18 years of age); (2) studies that included defunctioning colostomies or other types of small bowel stomas; (3) non-English papers; and (4) animal or laboratory studies. Risk of bias was analyzed across outcomes (incomplete outcome data), across studies, and across interpretation (reasons to doubt results).

Data extraction and review

Critical appraisal and data extraction were conducted independently by two reviewers (BM, AV), and discrepancies were resolved by consensus intervention of a third investigator (AA).

The following individual data were independently extracted for each included study using standardized extraction forms: general data (study design, year, sample size); characteristics of patients (age, gender, indication for the index operation); main features of the intervention (indication for ileostomy, timing of ileostomy closure, surgical technique of the anastomosis); and clinical outcomes.

The primary outcome was overall postoperative morbidity, defined as any complication occurring during the hospital stay or within 30 or 90 days after stoma closure. Secondary outcomes included death during the hospital stay or within 30 or 90 days after stoma closure, re-intervention during the hospital stay or within 30 or 90 days after stoma closure, stoma-related complications during the hospital stay or within 30 or 90 days after stoma closure, and specific surgical complications such as small bowel obstruction and/or ileus, anastomotic leak (i.e., pelvic colorectal leak and leak at the site of stoma closure), and wound infection.

Stoma-related complications were defined as the presence of any complications occurring between the index operation and stoma closure (i.e., dermatitis, parastomal infection, electrolyte imbalance, dehydration from high stoma output, renal insufficiency, stenosis, retraction, necrosis, prolapse, stricture, or readmission). The quality of the studies was checked using the PRISMA statement and JADAD Scale [22, 23].

Statistical analysis

All statistical analyses were performed using Review Manager 5.0 software (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK). A fixed model was used if there was no evidence of heterogeneity; otherwise, a random-effects model was used. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic, with values >50% considered to indicate significant heterogeneity. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for each trial from the number of evaluable patients, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to confirm the effect-size estimation and test criteria. The Mantel–Haenszel OR was calculated for dichotomous variables (or Peto OR when necessary). The P value for the overall effect was calculated using the Z test, with significance set at P < 0.05. Sensitivity analysis and estimation of publication bias were also performed.

Results

Population characteristics

Details of the initial search results and refined inclusion are presented in the flowchart (Fig. 1). Sixty-eight full-text articles were reviewed, and 20 appropriate studies were potentially assessed to be included in the meta-analysis. Of these, 14 were excluded because they had a cohort of <10 patients [24, 25], the early ileostomy closure group was >14 days from index operation [26, 27, 28, 29], there were insufficient details from which to extract or calculate the necessary data from the published results [15, 30, 31], and because they included reversal of jejunostomy or colostomy in the ileostomy cohort [14, 16, 32, 33]. The remaining six studies were analyzed, yielding 570 patients in two retrospective case series [19, 34] (one of which was a case-matched study [19]), one prospective case series [35], and three RCTs [17, 20, 21]. The JADAD Scale was >3 for the RCTs, and the PRISMA checklist was completed for the other studies.
Fig. 1

Flowchart of the meta-analysis

All anastomoses were investigated radiologically before ileostomy closure to ensure anastomotic integrity. Patients noted as having anastomotic complications before closure did not have their ileostomy reversed early. Patients were also excluded from EC if the recovery from their index operation was complicated by one or more of the following: sepsis or active infection, organ failure, poor postoperative recovery or condition, and prolonged postoperative ileus.

Results of meta-analysis

Overall morbidity rate

Five of the six studies reported overall postoperative morbidity rates. The overall morbidity rate was 26.2% (55/210) in the EC group and 30.4% (78/257) in the LC group. Meta-analysis showed no significant difference in the overall morbidity rate between the EC and LC groups (OR 0.98; 95% CI 0.63–1.53; P = 0.95) (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2

Overall morbidity rate

Anastomotic leakage rate

Two of the six studies reported postoperative anastomotic leakage rates. The anastomotic leakage rate was 4.0% (6/150) in the EC group and 6.1% (9/148) in the LC group. Meta-analysis showed no significant difference in the anastomotic leakage rate between the EC and LC groups (OR 0.63; 95% CI 0.22–1.78; P = 0.38) (Fig. 3). There was no statistical difference between the two groups regarding site of anastomotic leakage.
Fig. 3

Anastomotic leakage rate

Reoperation rate

All studies reported postoperative reoperation rates. The reoperation rate was 5.6% (14/252) in the EC group and 5.0% (16/318) in the LC group. Meta-analysis showed no significant difference in the reoperation rate between the EC and LC groups (OR 1.06; 95% CI 0.50–2.26; P = 0.88) (Figure 4).
Fig. 4

Reoperation rate

Small bowel obstruction rate

All studies reported small bowel obstruction rates. The small bowel obstruction rate was 5.6% (14/252) in the EC group and 12.3% (39/318) in the LC group. Meta-analysis showed that the rate of small bowel obstruction was significantly lower in the EC group than in the LC group (OR 0.46; 95% CI 0.24–0.86; P = 0.02) (Figure 5).
Fig. 5

Small bowel obstruction rate

Overall wound infection rate

All studies reported wound infection rates. The wound infection rate was 15.5% (39/252) in the EC group and 5.3% (17/318) in the LC group. Meta-analysis showed that the rate of wound infection rate was significantly lower in the LC group than in the EC group (OR 3.83; 95% CI 2.14–6.86; P < 0.00001) (Figure 6).
Fig. 6

Wound abscess rate

Stoma-related complication rate

Five of the six studies reported stoma-related complication rates. The stoma-related complication rate was 8.5% (20/236) in the EC group and 32.1% (99/308) in the LC group. Meta-analysis showed that the stoma-related complication rate was significantly lower in the EC group than in the LC group (OR 0.11; 95% CI 0.06–0.20; P < 0.00001) (Figure 7).
Fig. 7

Stoma-related complication rate

No deaths were reported by any of the six studies included.

Sensitivity analysis and publication bias

Sensitivity analysis and estimation of publication bias were performed with the aim of determining the significance of results. For small bowel obstruction rate, the combined OR was calculated using both a fixed-effects and a random-effects model, and the results were compared. Because statistically significant data are published more frequently than nonsignificant data, our results may be influenced by publication bias.

Discussion

The results of this meta-analysis provide evidence of the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of EC of a defunctioning loop ileostomy in carefully selected patients. This promising strategy resulted in no postoperative mortality and led to similar overall postoperative morbidity in comparison with LC. Although the wound abscess rate was significantly increased, EC reduced significantly both stoma-related complications and small bowel obstruction rates.

A defunctioning loop ileostomy is usually created to limit potentially life-threatening consequences of anastomotic leakage [1, 2]. However, three-fourths of patients undergoing rectal surgery with low colorectal anastomoses will recover without anastomotic complications [18]. Ideally, fecal diversion would only be performed in those patients who potentially develop anastomotic complications. However, the identification of patients who stand to benefit from fecal diversion cannot be accurately predicted preoperatively [36].

It is unknown how often defunctioning loop ileostomy is reversed after 8–12 weeks in routine clinical practice, while several pilot studies [14, 15, 16] have reported the feasibility of EC with promising results. The rationale behind this is to allow recovery after primary surgery, adequate healing of pelvic anastomoses, and both resolution of inflammation and reduction of adhesions around the stoma, in order to decrease the operative difficulty associated with ileostomy closure. However, operative times during early stoma closure are similar to [17] or shorter than [19, 20, 21, 35] those during LC, indicating no additional technical difficulties.

As previously described, EC significantly reduced stoma-related complication rates. This is particularly relevant because these complications can occur in approximately half of the patients, leading to an increased readmission rate [9, 10], delayed adjuvant treatment, impaired quality of life, and high economic costs [10, 11].

However, post-closure wound infections were significantly higher after EC. Therefore, to improve patient outcomes clinicians should take action to reduce wound infection [37]. According to a recent meta-analysis of RCTs, purse-string closure leads to significantly fewer surgical site infections and achieves better cosmetic outcomes following stoma reversal in comparison with conventional primary closure [38]. Thus, wounds may take longer to heal using this approach. Although the optimal skin closure method remains controversial, purse-string closure should be used following early stoma closure [39, 40].

This promising strategy allows the surgeon to perform stoma closure during the same admission as the index operation. EC avoids the need for community stoma nursing, ongoing stoma appliances, and subsequent readmission to treat stoma-related complications or undertake ileostomy reversal. Early stoma closure can introduce cost savings by reducing the use of stoma appliances, bags, and skin protection creams, in addition to less need for home nursing and fewer hospital readmissions [19, 20, 35].

However, careful selection of the patients (i.e., both uneventful postoperative recovery and integrity of pelvic anastomoses) remains crucial to maintaining low overall postoperative morbidity, which is the aim of early stoma reversal [41]. In the literature, approximately one-third of patients were deemed inappropriate for early reversal [17, 20] (i.e., asymptomatic anastomotic leakage, small bowel obstruction, and medical complications contraindicating a new elective surgery). Selection rates in the recent randomized study reached two-thirds of the patients [21]. In this regard, imaging plays a pivotal role because a false-negative radiologic result may lead to inadequate early ileostomy closure, thereby increasing the risk of anastomotic septic complications. Standard retrograde (via the anus) or antegrade (via the distal limb of the ileostomy) fluoroscopic contrast enema examinations have been considered as standard methods to assess anastomosis integrity [42]. However, Alves et al. [17] have reported a 7.5% false-negative radiologic result rate leading to re-intervention in two-thirds of these patients. Gouya et al. [43] have recently reported that computed tomography (CT) antegrade colonography is more accurate than antegrade fluoroscopy for evaluation of both low anastomosis and surrounding space patency. Using CT with water-soluble contrast, Danielsen et al. [21] reported no false-negative radiologic results.

Up to now, it has been recommended to begin adjuvant chemotherapy up to 8 weeks from the date of surgery for colorectal cancer [44]. However, defunctioning loop ileostomy has a major impact on compliance with the adjuvant treatment. For this reason, some patients insist on stoma closure before the beginning or at the end of adjuvant chemotherapy cycles, while other patients sometimes stop therapy prematurely. However, some surgeons and oncologists are reluctant to acquiesce because stoma closure is associated with a postoperative morbidity rate of 17% [41], which may affect the administration of adjuvant chemotherapy. Tulchinsky et al. [13] reported recently that EC before the start of adjuvant chemotherapy appears to be reserved for patients with a lower pathologic stage. In the future, EC should be proposed for these carefully selected patients, who should meet the inclusion criteria of (1) absence of anastomotic leakage detected by CT and (2) uneventful postoperative outcomes.

A number of limitations to our study must be considered. We have included three RCTs, two retrospective studies, and one prospective study. We conducted sensitivity analyses and subgroup analyses including the level of study (randomized clinical and non-randomized trial), which helped to address the potential issue of clinical heterogeneity as far as possible. The proportion of rectal cancer was not uniform, varying from 35 to 100%. Furthermore, the method used to assess pelvic anastomosis integrity is also a concern. A final limitation concerns the fact that relatively few patients underwent preoperative radiotherapy [21], and we were thus unable to separate irradiated patients from non-irradiated patients and perform a subgroup analysis.

In conclusion, this meta-analysis suggests that EC (within 14 days) is feasible. However, additional studies are needed to accurately define which individuals stand to benefit from EC among carefully selected patients without increasing the overall postoperative morbidity. EC was also found to significantly decrease both stoma-related complications and small bowel obstruction rates. Further studies are needed to assess this strategy with regard to completeness of adjuvant chemotherapy.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Hugh McGonigle, from Edanz Group (www.edanzediting.com/ac), for editing a draft of this manuscript.

Author contribution

Conception and design: BM, AA. Acquisition of data: BM, JL, AV. Analysis and interpretation of data: BM, AA. Drafting the article: BM, AA. Final approval: JL, AA.

References

  1. 1.
    Tan WS, Tang CL, Shi L et al (2009) Meta-analysis of defunctioning stomas in low anterior resection for rectal cancer. Br J Surg 96:462–472CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gu WI, Wu SW (2015) Meta-analysis of defunctioning stoma in low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: evidenced based on thirteen studies. World J Surg Oncol 13:9.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-014-0417-1 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hanna MH, Vinci A, Pigazzi A (2015) Diverting ileostomy in colorectal surgery: when is it necessary? Langenbecks Arch Surg 400:145–152CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Marusch F, Koch A, Schmidt U et al (2002) Value of a protective stoma in low anterior resections for rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 45:1164–1171CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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 85:1114–1117CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Karanjia ND, Corder AP, Holdworth PJ et al (1991) Risk of peritonitis and fatal septicaemia and the need to defunction the low anastomosis. Br J Surg 78:196–198CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Peeters KCMJ, Tollenaar RAEM, Marijnen CAM et al (2005) Risk factors for anastomotic failure after total mesorectal excision of rectal cancer. Br J Surg 92:211–216CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    O’Toole GC, Hyland JM, Grant DC et al (1999) Defunctioning loop ileostomy: a prospective audit. J Am Coll Surg 188:6–9CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gessler B, Haglind E, Angenete E (2014) A temporary loop ileostomy affects renal function. Int J Colorectal Dis 29:1131–1135CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Messaris E, Sehgal R, Deiling S et al (2012) Dehydration is the most common indication for readmission after diverting ileostomy creation. Dis Colon Rectum 55:175–180CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Beck-Kaltenbach N, Voigt K, Rumstadt B (2011) Renal impairment caused by temporary loop ileostomy. Int J Colorectal Dis 26:623–626CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Herrle F, Sandra-Petrescu F, Weiss C et al (2016) 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 59:281–290CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tulchinsky H, Shacham-Shmueli E, Klausner JM et al (2014) Should a loop ileostomy closure in rectal cancer patients be done during or after adjuvant therapy. J Surg Oncol 109:266–269CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Velmahos GC, Degiannis E, Wells M et al (1995) Early closure of colostomies in trauma patients—a prospective randomized trial. Surgery 118:620–815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bakx R, Busch ORC, van Geldere D et al (2003) Feasibility of early closure of loop ileostomies. Dis Colon Rectum 46:1680–1684CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jordi-Galais P, Turrin N, Tresallet C et al (2003) Fermeture précoce des stomies du grêle. Gastroenterol Clin Biol 27:697–699PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Alves A, Panis Y, Lelong B et al (2008) Randomized clinical trial of early versus delayed temporary stoma closure after proctectomy. Br J Surg 95:693–698CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Robertson JP, Puckett J, Vather R et al (2015) Early closure of temporary loop ileostomy: a systematic review. Ostomy Wound Manag 61:50–57Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Robertson J, Linkhorn H, Vather R et al (2013) Cost analysis of early versus delayed loop ileostomy closure: a case-matched study. Dig Surg 32:166–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lasithiotakis K, Aghahoseini A, Alexander D (2016) Is early reversal of defunctioning ileostomy a shorter, easier and less expensive operation? World J Surg 40:1737–1740.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-016-3448-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Danielsen AK, Park J, Jansen JE et al (2017) Early closure of a temporary ileostomy in patients with rectal cancer: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 265:284–290CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J et al (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6:e1000097CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jadad A, Moore R, Carroll D et al (1996) Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 17:1–12CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Worni M, Witschi A, Gloor B et al (2011) Early closure of ileostomy is associated with less postoperative nausea and vomiting. Dig Surg 28:417–423CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Perez RO, Habr-Gama A, Seid VE et al (2006) Loop ileostomy morbidity: timing of closure matters. Dis Colon Rectum 49:1539–1545CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Khan N, Bangash A, Hadi A et al (2010) Is early closure warranted in the management of temporary loop ileostomy? J Postgrad Med Inst 24:295–300Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tang CL, Seow-Choen F, Fook-Chong S et al (2003) Bioresorbable adhesion barrier facilitates early closure of the defunctioning ileostomy after rectal excision. Dis Colon Rectum 46:1200–1207CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Memon S, Heriot AG, Atkin CE et al (2012) Facilitated early ileostomy closure after rectal cancer surgery: a case-matched study. Tech Coloproctol 16:285–290CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Figueiredo MN, Mège D, Maggiori L et al (2015) When is the best time for temporary closure in laparoscopic sphincter-saving surgery for rectal cancer? A study of 259 consecutive patients. Tech Coloproctol 19:469–474CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Chand M, Nash GF, Talbot RW (2008) Timely closure of loop ileostomy following anterior resection for rectal cancer. Eur J Cancer Care 17:611–615Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wong KS, Remzi FH, Gorgun E et al (2005) Loop ileostomy closure after restorative proctocolectomy: outcome in 1504 patients. Dis Colon Rectum 48:243–250CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Menegaux F, Jordi-Galais P, Turrin N et al (2002) Closure of small bowel stomas on postoperative day 10. Eur J Surg 168:713–715CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gentilli S, Pizzorno C, Pessione S et al (2007) Early stoma closure in colorectal resections after endoscopic monitoring anastomosis. Clinical results. Chir Ital 59:507–512PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Omundsen M, Hayes J, Collinson R et al (2012) Early ileostomy closure: is there a downside? ANZ J Surg 82:352–354CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Krand O, Yalti T, Berber I et al (2008) Early vs delayed closure of temporary covering ileostomy: a prospective study. Hepatogastroenterology 55:142–145PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hirst NA, Tiernan JP, Millner PA et al (2014) Systematic review of methods to predict and detect anastomotic leakage in colorectal surgery. Colorectal Dis 16:95–109CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Li LT, Hicks SC, Davilla JA et al (2014) Circular closure is associated with the lowest rate of surgical site infection following stoma reversal: a systematic review and multiple treatment meta-analysis. Colorectal Dis 16:406–416CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hsieh MC, Kuo LT, Chi CC et al (2015) Pursestring closure versus conventional primary closure following stoma reversal to reduce surgical site infection rate: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Dis Colon Rectum 58:808–815CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Habbe N, Hannes S, Liese J et al (2014) The use of purse-string closure in loop ileostomy reversal leads to lower wound infection rates—a single high-volume centre experience. Int J Colorectal Dis 29:709–714CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Milanchi S, Nasseri Y, Kidner T et al (2009) Wound infection after ileostomy closure can be eliminated by circumferential subcuticular wound approximation. Dis Colon Rectum 52:469–474CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Chow A, Tilney HS, Paraskeva P et al (2009) The morbidity surrounding reversal of defunctioning ileostomies: a systematic review of 48 studies including 6,107 cases. Int J Colorectal Dis 24:711–723CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Shorthouse AJ, Bartram CI, Eyers AA et al (1982) The water soluble contrast enema after rectal anastomosis. Br J Surg 69:714–717CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Gouya H, Oudjit A, Leconte M et al (2012) CT antegrade colonography to assess proctectomy and temporary diverting ileostomy complications before early ileostomy takedown in patients with low rectal endometriosis. AJR 198:98–105CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Biagi JJ, Raphael MJ, Mackillop WJ et al (2011) Association between time to initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy and survival in colorectal cancer. A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 305:2335–2342CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Société Internationale de Chirurgie 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Benjamin Menahem
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Jean Lubrano
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Antoine Vallois
    • 1
    • 3
  • Arnaud Alves
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Digestive SurgeryUniversity Hospital of CaenCaen CedexFrance
  2. 2.UMR INSERM U1086 Cancers et preventionCentre François BaclesseCaen CedexFrance
  3. 3.UFR de MédecineCaen CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations