Italian guidelines for the surgical management of enteral stomas in adults
Worldwide, stomas represent a medical and social problem. Data from the literature on stoma management are extensive but not homogeneous. In Italy, no guidelines exist for this topic. Thus, clear and comprehensive clinical guidelines based on evidence-based data and best practice are need. In 2018, the Multidisciplinary Italian Study group for STOmas, called MISSTO, was founded. The aim was to elaborate guidelines for practice management of enteral and urinary stomas in adults.
A systematic review of the literature was performed using PubMed, National Guideline Clearinghouse, and other databases. The research included guidelines, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomized clinical trials, cohort studies, and case reports. Five main topics were identified: “stoma preparation”, “stoma creation”, “stoma complications”, “stoma care”, and “stoma reversal”. The systematic review was performed for each topic, and studies were evaluated according to the GRADE system, AGREE II tool.
Recommendations were elaborated in the form of statements with an established grade of recommendation for each statement. For low levels of scientific evidence statements, a consensus conference composed of expert members of the major Italian scientific societies in the field of stoma management and care was held. After discussing, correcting, validating, or eliminating the statements by the experts, the final version of the guidelines was elaborated and prepared for publication. This manuscript is focused on statements on the surgical management of enteral stomas.
These guidelines are the first Italian guidelines on multidisciplinary management of enteral stomas with the aim of assisting surgeons during stoma management and care.
KeywordsStoma Ostomy Enterostomy Ileostomy Colostomy Surgery
Special thanks to AIOSS for the original contribution and support to the project, with great ability to aggregate different healthcare professionals and scientific societies.
Contributing Members of the MISSTO project: Maria Dolores D’Elia, Patrizio Capelli, Roberto Dino Villani, Adolfo Renzi, Salvatore Siracusano, Maria Russo, Concetta Balzotti, Stefano Mancini, Roberto Aloesio, Loriano Bagnoli, Antonio Ferrazzano, Antonio D’Elia and Maria De Pasquale, on behalf of: AIOSS (Italian Association of Stoma Care Operators), SIC (Italian Society of Surgery), ACOI (Italian Association of Hospital Surgeons), SICCR (Italian Society of ColoRectal Surgery), SICO (Italian Society of Surgical Oncology), SIUCP (Italian Unitary Society of ColoProctology), SIU (Italian Society of Urology), AIURO (Italian Association of Urologic Nurses), AMICI (Association of Inflammatory Bowel Diseases), FAIS (Federative Association of Incontinent and Stoma Patients), and AISTOM (Italian Association of Stoma Patients).
All authors contributed to the study conception, design, material preparation, data collection, and analysis. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Travels and/or accommodations to meetings for the study group were supported by AIOSS (Associazione Italiana Operatori Sanitari Stomaterapia); travels to the first meeting for urologists were supported by SIU (Società Italiana di Urologia). These supports did not influence the content of the guidelines.
Compliance with ethical standard
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000.
No need of informed consent since no human subject was included in the study.
- 2.Italian Republic Senate (2015) Draft Law n. 2101. http://www.senato.it/leg/17/BGT/Schede/Ddliter/46103.htm#
- 3.De Salvo G (2005) Quanti siamo, sei anni dopo. Ritrovarci 2:15–16Google Scholar
- 10.Forsmo HM, Pfeffer F, Rasdal A et al (2016) Pre- and postoperative stoma education and guidance within an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programme reduces length of hospital stay in colorectal surgery. Int J Surg 36:121–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.10.031 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 12.Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). (2011) Diagnosis and management of colorectal cancerGoogle Scholar
- 29.Colwell JC, Gray M (2007) Does preoperative teaching and stoma site marking affect surgical outcomes in patients undergoing ostomy surgery? J Wound Ostomy Cont Nurs 34:492–496. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.WON.0000290726.08323.a6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 31.Pittman J, Rawl SM, Schmidt CM et al (2008) Demographic and clinical factors related to ostomy complications and quality of life in veterans with an ostomy. J Wound Ostomy Cont Nurs 35:493–503. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.WON.0000335961.68113.cb CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 56.Geng HZ, Nasier D, Liu B et al (2015) Meta-analysis of elective surgical complications related to defunctioning loop ileostomy compared with loop colostomy after low anterior resection for rectal carcinoma. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 97:494–501. https://doi.org/10.1308/003588415X14181254789240 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 85.Lin AY (2013) End ileostomy and loop ileostomy. In: Fleshman J (ed) Atlas of surgical techniques for colon, rectum and anus. Saunders, Philadelphia, pp 354–362Google Scholar
- 86.Lin AY, Birnbaum EH (2013) Colostomy: end and divided loop. In: Fleshman J (ed) Atlas of surgical techniques for colon, rectum and anus. Saunders, Philadelphia, pp 363–370Google Scholar
- 90.Couëtte C, Dumont F, Thibaudeau E (2018) Techniques des colostomies et traitement de leurs complications. EMC Techniques chirurgicales. Elsevier Masson, Paris, pp 1–25Google Scholar
- 91.Godiris-Petit G, Leyre P, Trésallet C, Ménégaux F (2010) Entérostomies chirurgicales. EMC Techniques chirurgicales. Elsevier Masson, Paris, pp 1–13Google Scholar
- 92.Hardt J, Seyfried S, Weiß C et al (2016) A pilot single-centre randomized trial assessing the safety and efficacy of lateral pararectus abdominis compared with transrectus abdominis muscle stoma placement in patients with temporary loop ileostomies: the PATRASTOM trial. Color Dis 18:O81–O90. https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.13251 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 143.Farag S, Rehman S, Sains P et al (2017) Early vs delayed closure of loop defunctioning ileostomy in patients undergoing distal colorectal resections: an integrated systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials. Color Dis 19:1050–1057. https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.13922 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 155.Sajid MS, Craciunas L, Baig MK, Sains P (2013) Systematic review and meta-analysis of published, randomized, controlled trials comparing suture anastomosis to stapled anastomosis for ileostomy closure. Tech Coloproctol 17:631–639. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-013-1027-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 162.Sajid MS, Bhatti MI, Miles WFA (2015) Systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials comparing purse-string vs conventional linear closure of the wound following ileostomy (stoma) closure. Gastroenterol Rep 3:156–161. https://doi.org/10.1093/gastro/gou038 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 167.Camacho-Mauries D, Rodriguez-Díaz JL, Salgado-Nesme N et al (2013) Randomized clinical trial of intestinal ostomy takedown comparing pursestring wound closure vs conventional closure to eliminate the risk of wound infection. Dis Colon Rectum 56:205–211. https://doi.org/10.1097/DCR.0b013e31827888f6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 169.O’Leary DP, Carter M, Wijewardene D et al (2017) The effect of purse-string approximation versus linear approximation of ileostomy reversal wounds on morbidity rates and patient satisfaction: the “STOMA” trial. Tech Coloproctol 21:863–868. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-017-1713-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar