metricas
covid
Buscar en
Cirugía Española (English Edition)
Toda la web
Inicio Cirugía Española (English Edition) Morbidity and Mortality of Temporary Diverting Ileostomies in Rectal Cancer Surg...
Información de la revista
Vol. 92. Núm. 9.
Páginas 604-608 (noviembre 2014)
Visitas
4598
Vol. 92. Núm. 9.
Páginas 604-608 (noviembre 2014)
Original article
Acceso a texto completo
Morbidity and Mortality of Temporary Diverting Ileostomies in Rectal Cancer Surgery
Morbilidad y mortalidad de la ileostomía derivativa temporal en la cirugía por cáncer de recto
Visitas
4598
Lucinda Pérez Domínguez
Autor para correspondencia
, María Teresa García Martínez, Nieves Cáceres Alvarado, Ángeles Toscano Novella, Antonio Pedro Higuero Grosso, José Enrique Casal Núñez
Servicio de Cirugía General y Aparato Digestivo, Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de Vigo, Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain
Este artículo ha recibido
Información del artículo
Resumen
Texto completo
Bibliografía
Descargar PDF
Estadísticas
Figuras (1)
Tablas (4)
Table 1. Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of Patients.
Table 2. Stages: Complications.
Table 3. Non-adjuvant vs Adjuvant Treatment. Complications After Ileostomy Closure.
Table 4. Complications: Subsequent Closure vs Prior to Adjuvant Treatment.
Mostrar másMostrar menos
Abstract
Introduction

A temporary diverting ileostomy is frequently used to reduce the consequences of a distal anastomotic leakage after total mesorectal excision in rectal cancer surgery. This surgical technique is associated with high morbidity and a not negligible mortality. The aim of this study is to evaluate the morbidity and mortality rate associated with an ileostomy and its posterior closure.

Materials and methods

Between 2001 and 2012, 96 patients with temporary diverting ileostomy were retrospectively analyzed. Morbidity and mortality were analyzed before and after the stoma closure. The studied variables included age, sex, comorbidities, time for bowel continuity restoration and adjuvant chemotherapy.

Results

In 5 patients the stoma was permanent and another 5 died. The morbidity and mortality rates associated with the stoma while it was present were 21% and 1% respectively. We performed a stoma closure in 86 patients, 57% of whom had previously received adjuvant therapy. There was no postoperative mortality after closure and the morbidity rate was 24%. The average time between initial surgery and restoration of intestinal continuity was 152.2 days. This interval was significantly higher in patients who had received adjuvant therapy. No statistically significant difference was found between the variables analyzed and complications.

Conclusions

Diverting ileostomy is associated with low mortality and high morbidity rates before and after closure. Adjuvant chemotherapy significantly delays bowel continuity restoration, although in this study did not influence the rate of complications.

Keywords:
Ileostomy
Temporary diverting ileostomy
Ileostomy closure
Morbidity
Rectal cancer
Resumen
Introducción

La ileostomía derivativa temporal es utilizada frecuentemente para disminuir las consecuencias de una dehiscencia anastomótica distal tras la escisión total del mesorrecto en la cirugía del cáncer rectal. Esta técnica quirúrgica está asociada a una alta morbilidad y a una mortalidad no despreciable. El objetivo de este estudio es evaluar la morbilidad y la mortalidad asociadas a la ileostomía y su posterior cierre.

Material y métodos

Entre 2001 y 2012 fueron analizados retrospectivamente 96 pacientes con ileostomía derivativa temporal. Se analizó la morbimortalidad tras la creación de la ileostomía y posteriormente al cierre de la misma, incluyendo como variables la edad, sexo, comorbilidades, tiempo transcurrido hasta la reconstrucción del tránsito y tratamiento adyuvante.

Resultados

El estoma fue permanente en 5 pacientes y 5 fueron exitus. La morbimortalidad relacionada con el estoma mientras este estuvo presente fue del 21 y 1% respectivamente. Se realizó el cierre del estoma en 86 pacientes y el 57% había recibido previamente adyuvancia. No hubo mortalidad postoperatoria tras el cierre y la morbilidad fue del 24%. El tiempo medio entre la cirugía inicial y la reconstrucción intestinal fue de 152,2 días. Este intervalo fue significativamente superior en los pacientes que recibieron adyuvancia. No se encontró significación estadísticamente significativa entre las variables analizadas y las complicaciones.

Conclusiones

La ileostomía está asociada a una baja mortalidad y a una morbilidad alta antes y después de su cierre. La quimioterapia adyuvante retrasa significativamente la reconstrucción intestinal, aunque en este estudio no ha influido en el índice de complicaciones.

Palabras clave:
Ileostomía
Ileostomía derivativa temporal
Cierre de ileostomía
Morbilidad
Cáncer rectal
Texto completo
Introduction

Anastomotic dehiscence is a serious complication in rectal cancer surgery. The consequences can be reduced by constructing a temporal derivative colostomy or ileostomy (TDI)1,2; the latter is preferable because it is linked to lower risk of complications.3–6

Constructing a TDI is considered a simple procedure, however, it is linked to 21%–70% of complications.7 Similarly, after closure, complications have a major impact on patients, with morbidity rates of up to 45.9%8; some case series report 6% mortality,9 and reoperation rates reaching 7%.10

Although reconstruction of intestinal transit is advised between 8 and 12 weeks11 after the original surgery and some authors recommend early closure,12,13 this time period may be influenced by several factors, including the need for adjuvant treatment.

This retrospective study aims to evaluate morbidity and mortality related to constructing and closing electively performed TDI in patients with colorectal anastomosis and total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer.

Materials and Methods

From April 2001 to December 2012, 134 patients who underwent loop ileostomy were included prospectively in the Colorectal Unit database at the Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de Vigo [Vigo University Hospital Complex]. We excluded cases where stoma was constructed in patients with a diagnosis other than rectal cancer or treated for anastomotic dehiscence. Finally, data from 96 consecutive patients were analyzed, who underwent TME with TDI for rectal cancer.

Ileostomy location was chosen by the surgeon. Although our unit has no current protocol for preoperative tests before ileostomy closure, in more than half of the cases gastrografin enema was performed to rule out complications of the anastomosis. Stoma closure was performed by circumferential incision; an end-to end manual anastomosis was performed, or a side-to-side anastomosis with manual or mechanical suturing as per the surgeon's indication. Incisions were closed primarily and patients received antibiotic prophylaxis. No intraabdominal drainage was placed. The surgeon decided the time for ileostomy closure time after adjuvant treatment in accordance with the oncologist.

Postoperative complications were divided into 2 groups, i.e., major complications and minor complications depending on whether they required resurgery or otherwise.

The following variables were included: sex, age, time elapsed since the first surgery, presence or absence of comorbidities (diabetes, hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart disease), and adjuvant treatment time. Stoma-related morbidity and mortality were analyzed based on 2 stages: after construction (stage I), and after closure (stage II).

Windows-based SPSS® (SPSS version 21, SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA) software was used for result analysis. The Student's t test was used to compare quantitative variables. Normality of variables was verified by the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. The chi square test was applied to compare qualitative variables. Values of P<.05 were considered statistically significant.

Results

Ileostomy was performed after TME in 96 patients with rectal cancer, 60 males (62%), mean age was 63.7±10 years. The stoma was created to protect low colorectal anastomosis in 80 patients (83%) and coloanal anastomosis in 16 (17%). Neoadjuvant treatment was prescribed in 56 cases (58%), and 49 patients (57%) received adjuvant treatment. The stoma remained permanent in 5 patients (5%) due to disease progression or problems with the colorectal anastomosis. Four patients died after surgery due to problems unrelated to the stoma, and another died of related TDI complications. Fig. 1 shows a patient progression diagram.

Fig. 1.

Chart showing patient progression.

(0.08MB).

The stoma was closed in 86 patients (90%), in a mean time of 152.5±152 days from the initial surgery. This time period was ≥6 months in 38% of cases, due to complications arising during adjuvant treatment or problems with the waiting list. Average hospital stay following stoma closure was 8.9±6 days (Table 1).

Table 1.

Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of Patients.

Patients  96 
Men  60 
Women  36 
Mean age (years)  63.7 (32–83) 
No. of comorbidities ≥1  60 
Neoadjuvant treatment  55 
Stoma closure  86 
Mean time between 1st surgery and closure (days)  152.5 (6–780) 
Adjuvant treatment  49 
No adjuvant treatment  37 
Mean hospital stay after closing (days)  8.9 (3–36) 

Stoma-related morbidity was 43%, and mortality 1%. Six patients (6%) required reoperation for ileostomy complications. Table 2 shows the analysis of complications by stages.

Table 2.

Stages: Complications.

Complications  No. of patients (%) 
Stage I  91 
Dermatitis  6 (7) 
High output  5 (5) 
Parastomal hernia  4 (4) 
Bleeding  2 (2) 
Prolapse  1 (1) 
Fasciitis  1 (1) 
Resurgery  2 (2)a 
Mortality  1 (1) 
Stage II  86 
Wound infection  9 (10) 
Prolonged ileus  6 (7) 
Intra-abdominal abscess  2 (2) 
Ileal anastomosis fistula  1 (1) 
Entero-cutaneous fistula  1 (1) 
Laparocele  1 (1) 
Resurgery  4 (5)b 

Stage I: Since ileostomy construction. Stage II: After ileostomy closure.

a

A total of 2 patients underwent reoperation due to paraileostomy fasciitis and parastomal hernia.

b

A total of 4 reoperations were performed to resolve intra-abdominal abscess after stoma closure, a laparocele, and in 2 cases an ileoileal anastomosis fistula.

In stage I, 19 patients (21%) had stoma-related complications: dermatitis (7%), high output (5%), parastomal hernia (4%), bleeding (2%), prolapse (1%), and fasciitis (1%) resulting in death. A total of 2 patients (2%) underwent reoperation.

Twenty-one patients (24%) had complications after ileostomy closure (stage II): wound infection (10%), prolonged ileus (7%), intraabdominal abscess (2%), anastomotic leak (1%), enterocutaneous fistula (1%), and laparocele (1%). Four patients (5%) underwent reoperations, 2 of them early (<30 days).

Stoma closure was performed in 30 of 49 patients who received adjuvant treatment after treatment completion, and before completion in 16. In 3 cases, due to problems with the stoma, closure was performed earlier, performed during adjuvant treatment. Average time between initial surgery and stoma closure was longer in patients who received adjuvant treatment compared to those who did not (194.2 days vs 97.4 days, P<.005). Among patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy, this time period was also shorter in those undergoing reconstruction after chemotherapy compared to those who had it prior (294.6 days vs 31.2 days, P<.001). This variable, the same as age, sex, and number of comorbidities, was not statistically significant for post-operative complications (Tables 3 and 4).

Table 3.

Non-adjuvant vs Adjuvant Treatment. Complications After Ileostomy Closure.

  Non-adjuvant treatment (%)n=37  Adjuvant treatment (%)n=49  P 
Mean age (years)  64.8  62.5  .330 
Male  27 (73)  27 (55)  .090 
Female  10 (27)  22 (45)   
Without comorbidities  12 (32)  21 (43)  .325 
Comorbidities ≥1  25 (68)  28 (57)   
Mean time until closure (days)  97.4  194.2  <.005 
Complications  10 (27)  8 (16)  .227 
Major complications  2 (5)  .100 
Minor complications  8 (21)  8 (16)  .532 
Table 4.

Complications: Subsequent Closure vs Prior to Adjuvant Treatment.

  Subsequent closure (%)n=30  Previous closure P (%)n=16  P 
Mean age (years)  62.1  64.1  .511 
Male  16 (53)  8 (50)  .829 
Female  14 (47)  8 (50)   
Without comorbidities  11 (37)  7 (44)  .639 
Comorbidities ≥1  19 (63)  9 (56)   
Mean time until closure (days)  294.6  31.2  <.001 
Complications  3 (10)  5 (31)  .131 
Discussion

Overall morbidity in this case series (43%) was similar to that reported by other authors.14 The percentage of complications attributable to TDI before closure ranges between 5% and 28%.15–19 In our study it was 21%, and similar to other case series, the most frequent were dermatitis, high intestinal output and parastomal hernia. Updated literature has no references on postoperative mortality attributable to stomas prior to closure. One patient in this series died 20 days after several reoperations due to abdominal wall fasciitis from ischemia and intestinal perforation in the ileum–fascial junction.

In an update of 46 studies, Chow et al.,20 analyzing results from 6107 patients, reported morbidity following TDI closure in 17.3% and a mortality rate of 0.4%. The most frequent complications were intestinal obstruction and abdominal wall infection. Our complication rate after TDI closure was 24% and 4 patients (5%) had to be reoperated on. The most common complications were wound infection and prolonged ileus. Reoperation rate was lower than that reported by other authors.14,20 There was no postoperative mortality.

We found that complication rates were significantly higher, and morbidity attributable to ileostomy prior to and after its closure is similar to those from other studies.

Optimal time between TDI construction and its closure is controversial. A period between 8 and 12 weeks from first surgery would be sufficient to allow full patient recovery time, reduce intra-abdominal adhesion density and allow for inflammation and edema resolution between abdomen and stoma.20 A time period less than 8.5 weeks would increase the risk of complications,21 and a longer period would be a negative outcome predictor.22 However, other authors13,23 conclude that in selected patients, stoma closure can be performed on the first hospital admission without increased morbidity. In 43% of our patients stoma closure was performed at a 97.4-day-period, since they did not receive adjuvant treatment, and the percentage of minor or major complications was not statistically significant compared to the group with greater wait time.

However, for patients with stages IIIV rectal cancer, this time period is determined by the need to complete chemotherapy cycles or start radio-chemotherapy, when these were not administered previously to surgery, so that temporary stoma closure may interfere with their start. This determines delaying loop ileostomy closure until after completion of adjuvant treatment.9,10

Some authors,24,25 in their univariate result analysis, reported a rate of complications after TDI closure significantly higher in patients receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy. In a recent study25 on 5401 patients, while chemotherapy and radiotherapy were significantly related to an increased rate of complications, this significance was lost when other factors were included in the multivariate analysis. This relationship has not been verified in our case series and those of other authors.8,10 Performing histopathological analysis in patients with low rectal cancer undergoing adjuvant treatment yielded no significant differences relative to the control group on postoperative complications after ileostomy closure or differences in crypt distortion, mucin depletion, acute or chronic inflammation and eosinophil infiltration in ileum.26 Therefore, it is conceivable that, in addition to adjuvant treatment, other factors such as advanced cancer and poorer health may have an impact on increased complications after TDI closure.

In our opinion, the time period to wait for stoma closure in the event the patient receives adjuvant treatment is too long and it should be performed as soon as possible. However, due to the small sample size, we cannot assume any recommendation on ideal stoma closure time in patients with rectal cancer requiring adjuvant treatment.

Complications prior to intestinal reconstruction must strongly emphasize that although this is a simple surgical procedure, we must be very meticulous in performing the technique, since in our experience it is one of the most important factors in developing morbidity in relation to the stoma.

In view of the above findings, we concluded that a TDI cannot always avoid the serious consequences of a colorectal anastomotic fistula, but the overall morbidity potential to patients with rectal cancer is very high. Therefore, the possible benefits of TDI must be considered in correlation with the potential adverse effects demonstrated in this study.

Conflict of Interest

Authors declare having no conflict of interest.

References
[1]
G.G. Chude, N.V. Ravate, V. Patris, M. Koshariva, R. Jagad, J. Kawamoto, et al.
Defunctioning loop ileostomy with low anterior resection for distal rectal cancer: should we make an ileostomy as a routine procedure. A prospective randomized study.
Hepatogastroenterology, 55 (2008), pp. 1562-1567
[2]
N. Hüser, C.W. Michalski, M. Erkan, T. Schuster, R. Rosenberg, J. Kleeff, et al.
Systematic review and meta-analysis of the role of defunctioning stoma in low rectal cancer surgery.
[3]
H.S. Tilney, P.S. Sains, R.E. Lovegrove, G.E. Reese, A.G. Heriot, P.P. Tekkis.
Comparison of outcomes following oleostomy versus colostomy defunctioning colorectal anastomoses.
World J Surg, 31 (2007), pp. 1142-1151
[4]
F. Rondelli, P. Reboldi, A. Rulli, F. Barberini, A. Guerrisi, L. Izzo, et al.
Loop ileostomy for fecal diversion after colorectal or coloanal anastomosis: a meta-analysis.
Int J Colorrectal Dis, 24 (2009), pp. 479-488
[5]
K.F. Güenaga, S.A. Lustosa, S.S. Saad, H. Saconato, D. Matos.
Ileostomy or colostomy for temporary decompression of colorectal anastomosis.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 24 (2007), pp. CD004647
[6]
J. Chen, Y. Zhang, C. Jiang, H. Yu, K. Zhang, M. Zhang, et al.
Temporary ileostomy versus colostomy for colorectal anastomosis: evidence from 12 studies.
Scand J Gastroenterol, 48 (2013), pp. 556-562
[7]
J. Shabbir, D.C. Britton.
Stoma complications: a literature overview.
Colorectal Dis, 12 (2010), pp. 958-964
[8]
M. Mengual-Ballester, J.A. García-Marín, E. Pellicer-Franco, M.P. Guillén-Paredes, M.L. García-García, M.J. Cases-Baldó, et al.
Ileostomías de protección: complicaciones y mortalidad asociadas a su cierre.
Rev Esp Enferm Dig, 104 (2012), pp. 350-354
[9]
B. Flikier-Zelkowicz, A. Codina-Cazador, R. Farrés-Coll, F. Olivet-Pujol, A. Martín-Grillo, M. Pujadas-de Palol.
Morbilidad y mortalidad en relación con el cierre de ileostomías derivativas en la cirugía del cáncer de recto.
Cir Esp, 84 (2008), pp. 16-19
[10]
R. Courtier, D. Parés, C.A. Silva, M.J. Gil, M. Pascual, S. Alonso, et al.
Resultados clínicos del cierre de ileostomías en asa en pacientes intervenidos de cáncer de recto. Efecto de la quimioterapia en el tiempo de espera.
[11]
C.L. Tang, F. Seow-Choen, S. Fook-Chong, K.W. Eu.
Bioresorbable adhesion barrier facilitates early closure of the defunctioning ileostomy after rectal excision: a prospective, randomized trial.
Dis Colon Rectum, 46 (2003), pp. 1200-1207
[12]
S. Memon, A.G. Heriot, C.E. Atkin, A.C. Lynch.
Facilitated early ileostomy closure after rectal cancer surgery: a case-matched study.
Tech Coloproctol, 16 (2012), pp. 285-290
[13]
F. Menegaux, P. Jordi-Galais, N. Turren, J.D. Chigot.
Closure of small bowel stomas on postoperative day 10.
Eur J Surg, 168 (2002), pp. 713-715
[14]
R. Bakx, O.R. Busch, W.A. Bemelman, G.J. Veldink, J.F. Slors, J.J. van Lanschot.
Morbidity of temporary loop ileostomies.
Dig Surg, 21 (2004), pp. 277-281
[15]
S.I. Seo, C.S. Yu, G.S. Kim, J.L. Lee, Y.S. Yoon, C.W. Kim, et al.
The role of diverting stoma after an ultra-low anterior resection for rectal cancer.
Ann Coloproctol, 29 (2013), pp. 66-71
[16]
G.C. O’Toole, J.M. Hyland, D.C. Grant, M.K. Barry.
Defunctioning loop ileostomy: a prospective audit.
J Am Coll Surg, 188 (1999), pp. 6-9
[17]
G.F. Giannakopoulos, A.A. Veenhof, D.L. van der Peet, C. Sietses, W.J. Meijerink, M.A. Cuesta.
Morbidity and complications of protective loop ileostomy.
Colorectal Dis, 11 (2009), pp. 609-612
[18]
A.W. Gooszen, R.H. Geelkerken, J. Hermans, M.B. Lagancy, H.G. Gooszen.
Temporary decompression after colorectal surgery: randomized comparison of loop ileostomy and loop colostomy.
[19]
J.T. Lordan, R. Heywood, S. Shirol, P. Edwards.
Following anterior resection for rectal cancer, defunctioning ileostomy closure may be significantly delayed by adjuvant chemotherapy: a retrospective study.
Colorectal Dis, 9 (2007), pp. 420-422
[20]
A. Chow, H.S. Tilney, P. Paraskeva, S. Jeyarajah, E. Zacharakis, S. Purkayastha.
The morbidity surrounding reversal of defunctioning ileostomies: a systematic review of 48 studies including 6,107 cases.
Int J Colorectal Dis, 24 (2009), pp. 711-723
[21]
R.O. Perez, A. Habr-Gama, V.E. Seid, T. Proscurshim, A.H. Sousa Jr., D.R. Kiss, et al.
Loop ileostomy morbidity: timing of closure matters.
Dis Colon Rectum, 49 (2006), pp. 1539-1545
[22]
A. El-Hussana, M. Lauritsen, S. Bülow.
Relative high incidence of complication after loop ileostomy reversal.
Dan Med J, 59 (2012), pp. A517
[23]
R. Bakx, O.R. Busch, D. van Geldere, W.A. Bemelman, J.F. Slors, J.J. van Lanschot.
Feasibility of early closure of loop ileostomies: a pilot study.
Dis Colon Rectum, 46 (2003), pp. 1680-1684
[24]
A. Thalheimer, M. Bueter, M. Kortuem, A. Thiede, D. Meyer.
Morbidity of temporary loop ileostomy in patients with colorectal cancer.
Dis Colon Rectum, 49 (2006), pp. 1011-1017
[25]
A. Sharma, P. Deeb, S. Rickles, J.C. Iannuzzi, J.R.T. Monson, F.J. Fleming.
Closure of defunctioning loop ileostomy is associated with considerable morbidity.
Colorectal Dis, 15 (2013), pp. 451-457
[26]
S.R. Wijesuriya, J. Hewavisenthi, K.I. Deen.
Patients with rectal cancer having neoadjuvant chemoradiation do not have increased complications of ileostomy closure.
Ceylon Med, 55 (2010), pp. 115-117

Please cite this article as: Pérez Domínguez L, García Martínez MT, Cáceres Alvarado N, Toscano Novella Á, Higuero Grosso AP, Casal Núñez JE. Morbilidad y mortalidad de la ileostomía derivativa temporal en la cirugía por cáncer de recto. Cir Esp. 2014;92:604–608.

Copyright © 2013. AEC
Descargar PDF
Opciones de artículo
es en pt

¿Es usted profesional sanitario apto para prescribir o dispensar medicamentos?

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?

Você é um profissional de saúde habilitado a prescrever ou dispensar medicamentos