Protective colostomy and protective ileostomy for the prevention of anastomotic leak in patients with rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and radical surgery / 中华胃肠外科杂志

Objective: To investigate whether protective colostomy and protective ileostomy have different impact on anastomotic leak for rectal cancer patients after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) and radical surgery. Methods: A retrospectively cohort study was conducted. Inclusion criteria: (1) Standard neoadjuvant therapy before operation; (2) Laparoscopic rectal cancer radical resection was performed; (3) During the operation, the protective enterostomy was performed including transverse colostomy and ileostomy; (4) The patients were followed up regularly; (5) Clinical data was complete. Exclusion criteria: (1) Colostomy and radical resection of rectal cancer were not performed at the same time; (2) Intestinal anastomosis is not included in the operation, such as abdominoperineal resection; (3) Rectal cancer had distant metastasis or multiple primary colorectal cancer. Finally 208 patients were included in this study. They suffered from rectal cancer and underwent protective stoma in radical surgery after nCRT at our hospital from January 2014 to December 2018. There were 148 males and 60 females with age of (60.5±11.1) years. They were divided into protective transverse colostomy group (n=148) and protective ileostomy group (n=60). The main follow up information included whether the patient has anastomotic leak and the type of leak according to ISREC Grading standard. Besides, stoma opening time, stoma flow, postoperative hospital stay, stoma related complications and postoperative intestinal flora were also collected. Results: A total of 28 cases(13.5%) suffered from anastomotic leak and 26 (92.9%) of them happened in the early stage after surgery (less than 30 days) . As for these early-stage leak, ISREC Grade A happened in 11 cases(42.3%), grade B in 15 cases(57.7%) and no grade C occurred. There was no significant difference in the incidence [12.8% (19/148) vs. 15.0% (9/60) , χ(2)=0.171, P=0.679] or type [Grade A: 5.4%(8/147) vs. 5.1%(3/59); Grade B: 6.8%(10/147) vs. 8.5%(5/59), Z=0.019, P=1.000] of anastomotic leak between the transverse colostomy group and ileostomy group (P>0.05), as well as operation time, postoperative hospital stay, drainage tube removal time or stoma reduction time (P>0.05). There were 10 cases (6.8%) and 24 cases (40.0%) suffering from intestinal flora imbalance in protective transverse colostomy and protective ileostomy group, respectively (χ(2)=34.503, P<0.001). Five cases (8.3%) suffered from renal function injury in the protective ileostomy group, while protective colostomy had no such concern (P=0.002). The incidence of peristomal dermatitis in the protective colostomy group was significantly lower than that in the protective ileostomy group [12.8% (9/148) vs. 33.3%(20/60), χ(2)=11.722, P=0.001]. Conclusions: It is equally feasible and effective for rectal cancer patients after nCRT to carry out protective transverse colostomy or ileostomy in radical surgery. However, we should pay more attention to protective ileostomy patients, as they are at high risk of intestinal flora imbalance, renal function injury and peristomal dermatitis.

Routine barium enema prior to closure of defunctioning ileostomy is not necessary / 대한외과학회지

PURPOSE: The use of barium enemas to confirm the anastomotic integrity prior to ileostomy closure is still controversial. The purpose of the study was to determine the utility of routine contrast enema prior to ileostomy closure and its impact on patient management in patients with a low pelvic anastomosis. METHODS: One hundred forty-five patients had a temporary loop ileostomy constructed to protect a low colorectal or coloanal anastomosis following low anterior resection for rectal cancer. All patients were evaluated by physical examination, proctoscopy, and barium enema prior to ileostomy closure. RESULTS: The median time from ileostomy creation to closure was 8 months. Five (3.5%) of the 144 patients were found to have clinically relevant strictures at the colorectal anastomosis on routine barium enema. One patient (0.7%) showed anastomotic leak on their barium enema. Overall, 141 patients (97.9%) had an uncomplicated postoperative course. Postoperative complication occurred in three patients (2.1%). None of them showed abnormal barium enema finding, which suggested that routine contrast enema examination did not predict postoperative complication. CONCLUSION: Routine barium enema evaluation of low pelvic anastomoses before loop ileostomy closure did not provide any additional information for postoperative colorectal anastomotic complication.