Advertisement

World Journal of Surgery

, Volume 42, Issue 10, pp 3171–3178 | Cite as

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.

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 17:1–12CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle 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