Anastomotic Sinus That Developed From Leakage After a Rectal Cancer Resection: Should We Wait for Closure of the Stoma Until the Complete Resolution of the Sinus?

PURPOSE: The aims of this study were to identify the clinical characteristics of an anastomotic sinus and to assess the validity of delaying stoma closure in patients until the complete resolution of an anastomotic sinus. METHODS: The subject patients are those who had undergone a resection of rectal cancer from 2011 to 2017, who had a diversion ileostomy protectively or therapeutically and who developed a sinus as a sequelae of anastomotic leakage. The primary outcomes that were measured were the incidence, management and outcomes of an anastomotic sinus. RESULTS: Of the 876 patients who had undergone a low anterior resection, 14 (1.6%) were found to have had an anastomotic sinus on sigmoidoscopy or a gastrografin enema before their ileostomy closure. In the 14 patients with a sinus, 7 underwent ileostomy closure as scheduled, with a mean closure time of 4.1 months. The remaining 7 patients underwent ileostomy repair, but it was delayed until after the follow-up for the widening of the sinus opening by using digital dilation, with a mean closure time of 6.9 months. Four of those remaining seven patients underwent stoma closure even though their sinus condition had not yet been completely resolved. No pelvic septic complications occurred after closure in any of the 14 patients with an anastomotic sinus, but 2 of the 14 needed a rediversion due to a severe anastomotic stricture. CONCLUSION: Patients with an anastomotic sinus who had been carefully selected underwent successful ileostomy closure without delay.

Feasibility and Safety of a Fold-Over Diverting Ileostomy Reversal After Rectal Cancer Surgery: Case-Matched Comparison to the Resection Technique

PURPOSE: Compared to the stapling technique, the fold-over technique (FO) has the benefit of avoiding the sacrifice of the bowel segment. The aim of this study was to compare short-term outcomes between the FO and a conventional resection. METHODS: Between June 2008 and March 2012, a total of 242 patients who underwent a diverting ileostomy reversal after rectal cancer surgery were selected. Among them, 29 patients underwent the FO. Using propensity scores to adjust for body mass index, previous abdominal surgery history, rectal cancer surgery type (open vs. minimally invasive), and reason for ileostomy (protective aim vs. leakage management), we created a well-balanced cohort by matching each patient who underwent the FO, as the study group, with two patients who underwent a stapled or a hand-sewn technique with bowel resection (RE), as the control group (FO : RE = 1 : 2). Morbidity and perioperative recovery were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Twenty-four and forty-eight patients were allocated to the FO and the RE groups, respectively. The mean operation time was 91 +/- 26 minutes in the FO group and 97 +/- 34 minutes in the RE group (P = 0.494). The overall morbidity rates were not different between the two groups (12.5% in FO vs. 14.6% in RE, P = 1.000). The rate of postoperative ileus was similar between the two groups (8.3% in FO vs. 12.5% in RE, P = 0.710). Although time to resumption of soft diet was shorter in the FO group than in the RE group, the lengths of hospital stay were not different. CONCLUSION: The FO and the conventional resection have similar short-term clinical outcomes for diverting ileostomy reversal.