Revising our concepts about stoma covering a low rectal anastomosis

Introduction: There has been conclusive evidence that defunctioning stoma with either transverse colostomy or ileostomy mitigates the serious consequences of anastomotic leakage. However,whether transverse colostomy or ileostomy is preferred for defunctioning a rectal anastomosis remains controversial. The present study was designed to identify the best defunctioning stoma for colorectal anastomosis. Objective: To improve the quality of life in patients with rectal resection and anastomosis and reduce the morbidity before and after closure of the stoma. Patients and Methods The present study included 48 patients with elective colorectal resection who were randomly arranged into 2 equal groups, with 24 patients each. Group I consisted of patients who underwent ileostomy, and group II consisted of patients who underwent colostomy as a defunctioning stoma for a low rectal anastomosis. All surviving patients were readmitted to have their stoma closed and were followed-up for 6 months after closure of their stomas. All data regarding local and general complications of construction and closure of the stoma of the two groups were recorded and blotted against each other to clarify the most safe and tolerable procedure. Results: We found that all nutritional deficiencies, dehydration, electrolytes imbalance, peristomal dermatitis, and frequent change of appliances are statistically more common in the ileostomy group, while stomal retraction and wound infection after closure of the stoma were statistically more common in the colostomy group. There were no statistically significant differences regarding the total hospital stay and mortality between the two groups. Conclusion and Recommendation: Ileostomy has much higher morbidities than colostomy and it also has a potential risk of mortality; therefore, we recommend colostomy as the ideal method for defunctioning a distal colorectal anastomosis. (AU)

Influence of nursing intervention on anastomotic healing after low colorectal surgery / 中国实用护理杂志

Objective To discusses the effect of different nursing methods on anastomotic healing after low colorectal surgery. Methods 60 patient with colorectal cancer undergoing low anastomosis were randomly divided into the experimental group and the control group with 30 cases in each.The experimental group adopted modified nursing care,while the control group received routine nursing care.The defecation times and incidence of complications were observed between the two groups.Results The defecation frequency of the experimental group was less than the control group,and the incidence of rectal stimulation sign,anastomotic fistula and obstruction was less in the experimental group.Conclusions Modifed nursing methods have certain effects on preventing postoperative complications of low colorectal anastomosis.

Anastomosis Protection with Mallecot in Low Rectal Anastomosis

PURPOSE: Anastomotic leakage following surgery is one of the most significant causes of morbidity and mortality. Therefore, prevention of anastomotic leakage is crucial for safe rectal surgery. The aim of this study is to determine the effect of Mallecot(R) insertion on the prevention of anastomotic leakage after low rectal anastomosis. METHODS: From January 2002 to December 2006, 264 rectal cancer surgeries were performed in one center and by one surgeon. Among them, 110 cases whose anastomosis was located below 6 cm from the anal verge were collected and reviewed retrospectively. We made a diverting stoma on 6 out of 20 patients with high risk of anastomotic leakage, and inserted Mallecot(R) on the remaining 14 patients transanally. Removal of Mallecot(R) was done at the 7th postoperative day after a digital rectal examination to identify the completeness of anastomosis had been performed. RESULTS: Totally, anastomotic leakage occurred in 8 of 110 patients (73%). Among the 90 patients without any preventive measures, 7 incidents of anastomotic leakage were observed; on the other hand, 1 of 14 patients with Mallecot(R) insertion suffered anastomotic leakage. In two of the patients with leakage, including 1 in the Mallecot(R) group, the leakage was resolved via percutaneous drainage; in the other 6 patients were reoperated. CONCLUSIONS: The importance of preventing an anastomotic leakage after low rectal surgery cannot be overemphasized to reduce morbidity and to improve the prognosis. In addition, Mallecot(R) insertion may be an alternative method for diverting stoma formation.