The influence of diverting loop ileostomy vs. colostomy on postoperative morbidity in restorative anterior resection for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the morbidity of loop ileostomy (LI) and loop colostomy (LC) creation in restorative anterior resection for rectal cancer as well as the morbidity of their reversal.
PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE via Ovid, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched for records published from 1980 to 2017 by three independent researchers. The primary endpoint was overall morbidity after stoma creation and reversal. Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio (OR) was used to compare categorical variables. Clinical significance was evaluated using numbers needed to treat (NNT).
Six studies (two randomized controlled trials and four observational studies) totaling 1063 patients (666 LI and 397 LC) were included in the meta-analysis. Overall morbidity rate after both stoma creation and closure was 15.6% in LI vs. 20.4% in LC [OR(95%CI) = 0.67 (0.29, 1.58); p = 0.36] [NNT(95%CI) = 21 (> 10.4 to benefit, > 2430.2 to harm)]. Morbidity rate after stoma creation was both statistically and clinically significantly lower after LI [18.2% vs. 30.6%; OR(95%CI) = 0.42 (0.25, 0.70); p = 0.001; NNT(95%CI) = 9 (4.7, 29.3)]. Dehydration rate was 3.1% (8/259) in LI vs. 0% (0/168) in LC. The difference was not statistically or clinically significant [OR(95%CI) = 3.00 (0.74, 12.22); p = 0.13; NNT (95%CI) = 33 (19.2, 101.9)]. Ileus rates after stoma closure were significantly higher in LI as compared to LC [5.2% vs. 1.7%; OR(95%CI) = 2.65 (1.13, 6.18); p = 0.02].
This meta-analysis found no difference between LI and LC in overall morbidity after stoma creation and closure. Morbidity rates following the creation of LI were significantly decreased at the cost of a risk for dehydration.
KeywordsTemporary fecal diversion Morbidity rates Loop colostomy Rectal cancer Ileostomy
Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND Final approval of the version to be published; AND Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
This study has not received any funding.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.
Not applicable as this is a summary design study.
- 5.Khoury GA, Lewis MC, Meleagros L, Lewis AA (1987) Colostomy or ileostomy after colorectal anastomosis?: a randomized trial. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 69(1):5–7Google Scholar
- 9.Edwards DP, Leppington-Clarke A, Secton R, Heald RJ, Moran BJ (2001) Stoma-related complications are more frequent after transverse colostomy than loop ileostomy: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Br J Surg 88(3):360–363. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2168.2001.01727.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Rondelli F, Reboldi P, Rulli A, Barberini F, Guerrisi A, Izzo L, Bolognese A, Covarelli P, Boselli C, Becattini C, Noya G (2009) Loop ileostomy versus loop colostomy for fecal diversion after colorectal or coloanal anastomosis: a meta-analysis. Int J Color Dis 24(5):479–488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-009-0662-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Guenaga KF, Lustosa SA, Saad SS, Saconato H, Matos D (2007) Ileostomy or colostomy for temporary decompression of colorectal anastomosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1:CD004647Google Scholar
- 16.Amelung FJ, Van’t Hullenaar CP, Verheijen PM, Consten EC (2017) Ileostomy versus colostomy: which is preferable? Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 161(0):D788Google Scholar
- 17.Higgins JP, Green S (2011) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Vol. 4. Wiley, EnglandGoogle Scholar
- 19.Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, Moher D, Becker BJ, Sipe TA, Thacker SB (2000) Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 283(15):2008–2012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Tocci A, Mazzoni G, Miccini M, Bettelli E, Cassini D (2002) Use of ileostomy and colostomy as temporal derivation in colorectal surgery. G Chir 23:48–52Google Scholar
- 29.Corman ML (2012) Intestinal stomas. In: Corman ML, Bergamaschi RCM, Nicholls RJ, Fazio VW (eds) Corman’s Colon and Rectal surgery, 6th edn. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, New York, pp 1421–1422Google Scholar
- 33.Fasth S, Hultén L, Palselius I (1980) Loop ileostomy--an attractive alternative to a temporary transverse colostomy. Acta Chir Scand 146(3):203–207Google Scholar
- 34.Rutegård J, Dahlgren S (1987) Transverse colostomy or loop ileostomy as diverting stoma in colorectal surgery. Acta Chir Scand 153(3):229–232Google Scholar
- 35.Göhring U, Lehner B, Schlag P (1988) Ileostomy versus colostomy as temporary deviation stoma in relation to stoma closure. Chirurg 59(12):842–844Google Scholar
- 37.Gavriilidis P, Azoulay D, Taflampas P (2018) Loop transverse colostomy versus loop ileostomy for defunctioning of colorectal anastomosis: a systematic review, updated conventional meta-analysis, and cumulative meta-analysis. Surg Today. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-018-1708-x
- 38.Geng HZ, Nasier D, Liu B, Gao H, Xu YK (2015) Meta-analysis of elective surgical complications related to defunctioning loop compared with loop colostomy after low anterior resection for rectal carcinoma. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 97(7):494–501. https://doi.org/10.1308/003588415X14181254789240 CrossRefGoogle Scholar