Quality of Life and Bowel Function Following Early Closure of a Temporary Ileostomy in Patients with Rectal Cancer: A Report from a Single-Center Randomized Controlled Trial.

The aim of this study was to assess quality of life and bowel function in patients undergoing early vs. standard ileostomy closure. We retrospectively assessed patients from our previous randomized controlled trial. Patients with a temporary ileostomy who underwent rectal cancer surgery and did not have anastomotic leakage or other. Early closure (EC; 30 days after creation) and standard closure (SC; 90 days after creation) of ileostomy were compared. Thirty-six months (17-97) after stoma closure, we contacted patients by phone and filled in two questionnaires-The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) and low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) score. This index trial was not powered to assess the difference in bowel function between the two groups. All the patients in the SC group had anastomosis <6 cm from the anal verge compared to 42 of 43 (97.7%) in the EC group. There were no statistically significant differences between EC (26 patients) and SC (25 patients) groups in the EORTC QLQ-C30 and LARS questionnaires. Global quality of life was 37.2 (0-91.7; ±24.9) in the EC group vs. 34.3 (0-100; ±16.2) in the SC (p = 0.630). Low anterior resection syndrome was present in 46% of patients in the EC and 56% in the SC group (p = 0.858). Major LARS was found more often in younger patients. However, no statistical significance was found (p = 0.364). The same was found with quality of life (p = 0.219). Age, gender, ileostomy closure timing, neoadjuvant treatment, complications had no effect of worse bowel function or quality of life. There was no difference in quality of life or bowel function in the late postoperative period after the early vs. late closure of ileostomy based on two questionnaires and small sample size. None of our assessed risk factors had a negative effect on bowel function o quality of life.

Early versus standard closure of temporary ileostomy in patients with rectal cancer: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: A significant proportion of patients undergoing rectal cancer surgery receive a temporary ileostomy because of its benefits in case of anastomotic dehiscence. However, the best timing for closure remains unclear. METHODS: Early closure (EC; 30 days after creation) and standard closure (SC; 90 days after creation) of ileostomy were compared in a single-center randomized controlled trial conducted at National Cancer Institute (Vilnius, Lithuania). Patients with a temporary ileostomy who underwent rectal cancer surgery and did not have anastomotic leakage or other serious complications were randomized to early or standard ileostomy closure groups. Thirty days postoperative morbidity following ileostomy closure was the primary outcome of the study. RESULTS: The trial was prematurely terminated due to the safety reason after 86 patients were randomized to EC (43 patients) and SC (43 patients) groups. The overall 30 days postoperative morbidity rate was dramatically higher in the EC group (27.9% vs 7.9%; P = 0.024). Moreover, severe complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥3) were present only after EC of ileostomy in five (11.6%) patients. CONCULSION: Early closure of ileostomy at 30 days after radical rectal resection is not safe and should not be performed.

[Surgery for esophageal cancer: 10 years experience]. / Stemples vezio chirurginio gydymo galimybes (10-ties metu patirtis).

UNLABELLED: Objective of work was to evaluate efficacy of surgery for esophageal cancer with one-step gastric pipe reconstruction, to analyze postoperative complications, causes of deaths and patient's life expectancy. In 1992-2002 in Clinic of Surgery Vilnius University Institute of Oncology 213 patients underwent surgery for esophageal cancer; 177 patients (83.0%) were applied transthoracic approach, 34 patients (15.9%) transhiatal and 2 patients (0.9%) Lewis type operations. TNM of patients were T3N1M0 - 99 (46.4%), T2N1M0 - 17 (7.9%), T2N0M0 - 16 (7.5%), T4N2M0 - 54 (25.3%), T2-3N2M1 - 27 (12.6%). Patient performance status according to WHO scale was 0-2. The following postoperative complications were observed: vagus pneumonia - 52 (24.2%) patients, heart insufficiency- 13 patients (6.1%), aortal bleeding 3 (1.4%) patients, suture leakadge - 33 (15.4%) patients, injury of n. reccurentis 17 (7.9%) patients, pleurites 29 (13.6%). Postoperative mortality after transthoracic approach - 29.3%, transhiatal - 15%, Lewis resections - 0%. Median survival after transthoracic approach - 29 months, transhiatal - 34 months, Lewis resections - 39 months. CONCLUSIONS: Surgery for esophageal cancer is the most sufficient way of esophageal cancer treatment. Three-level lymphadenectomies postpone early relapses. Postoperative mortality varies from 15 to 29.3%, median survival from 29 to 39 months.

[Prognostic factors for resectable esophageal cancer]. / Stemples vezio chirurginio gydymo prognoziniai veiksniai.

UNLABELLED: Objective was to evaluate prognostic factors influencing the postoperative mortality after esophagectomy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The results of surgical treatment of 106 patients suffering from esophageal cancer were analyzed retrospectively. The presurgical risk factors in the surviving patients (group I, n=94) and in those patients, who died within the postoperative period (group II, n=12), were compared. The following indicators were analyzed: patients' age, body mass index, preoperative loss of body mass, tumor location, type and duration of operation, amount of blood transfused, ECG changes, changes in the lungs visible on chest X-ray, and spirometry indices. We examined the volume of forced expiration within the first second (FEV1), forced expiratory vital capacity (FVC), peak expiratory flow (PEF), Gaensler index (FEV1/FVC), Tiffeneu index (FEV1/VC) and amount of PaCO(2)in arterial blood. RESULTS: Postoperative mortality was 11.3%. The following statistically reliable differences in the indices of group I and group II patients were established: FEV1 (82.3% and 65.4%), Gaensler index (75.2% and 68.5%), PaCO(2)(37.4 mmHg ir 42 mmHg), radiographic changes in the lings (13.6%l and 61.2%), loss of body mass within the preoperative period (11.2% and 18.3%), lower albumin values (39.9 g/l and 30.5 g/l) and tumor localization within the upper third of the esophagus (22% and 68.8%). The leak of anastomosis - 11.8% and 82.8%. CONCLUSION: The postoperative mortality after esophagectomy mostly depends on the status of pulmonary function during the postoperative period, inadequate nutrition during the preoperative period and tumor localization in the upper third of the esophagus. Main complications after esophagectomy are pulmonary insufficiency and leak of anastomosis.