The purpose of this current study was to explore whether one-stitch method (OM) of temporary ileostomy influenced the surgical outcomes after laparoscopic low anterior resection (LLAR).

We retrospectively identified rectal cancer (RC) patients who underwent LLAR plus temporary ileostomy in a single teaching hospital from Jan 2011 to June 2023. According to the different methods of ileostomy, the patients were divided into the OM group and the traditional method (TM) group. A propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed to eliminate bias and compare the surgical outcomes.

A total of 469 RC patients were included in this study. There were 57 patients in the OM group and 412 patients in the TM group. After 1:1 PSM, there were 57 patients in each group, and no significant difference was found in baseline information (P > 0.05). In terms of surgical outcomes of primary RC surgery, we found that patients in the OM group had shorter operation time (P < 0.01), less blood loss (P < 0.01), and shorter postoperative hospital stay (P < 0.01) than in the TM group after PSM. Moreover, there was no significant difference in both overall complications and stoma-related complications. As for the outcomes of stoma reversal surgery, patients in the OM group had shorter postoperative hospital stay (P = 0.002) than in the TM group before PSM. However, no significant difference was found after PSM (P > 0.05).

The OM of temporary ileostomy was easier, more effective and time-saving than the TM, which did not increase the incidence of both postoperative complications and stoma-related complications.

Rectal cancer surgery has undergone transformative advancements over the past few decades, evolving from radical, high-morbidity procedures to more refined techniques focused on both oncological outcomes and the preservation of anorectal function. This review provides a brief overview of the history of rectal cancer surgery, highlighting key innovations in imaging, neoadjuvant therapy, and minimally invasive techniques that have significantly reduced the need for permanent and temporary ostomies. Additionally, the current indications for both permanent and temporary ostomies are reviewed, including a discussion of associated complications, such as non-reversal, parastomal hernias, stomal prolapse, stenosis, and skin-related issues, along with strategies and techniques to mitigate these complications. This review underscores the importance of ongoing innovation and individualized surgical planning to enhance patient outcomes in rectal cancer care by understanding the historical context, contemporary practices, and associated challenges.

Compared to standardized minimally invasive colorectal procedures, there is considerable perioperative heterogeneity in loop ileostomy reversal. This study aimed to investigate the current perioperative practice and technical variations of loop ileostomy reversal following rectal cancer surgery. A nationwide online survey was conducted among members of the Italian Society of ColoRectal Surgery (SICCR). A link to the questionnaire was sent via mail. The survey consisted of 31 questions concerning the main procedural steps and application of the ERAS protocol after loop ileostomy reversal. Overall, 219 participants completed the survey. One respondent in four used a combination of water-soluble contrast studies (WSCS) and digital rectal examination to assess the integrity of the anastomosis before ileostomy closure. Conversely, 17.8% of them used either only WSCS or only endoscopy. Surgeons routinely perform hand-sewn or stapled anastomoses in 45.2% and 54.8% of the cases, respectively. Side-to-side antiperistaltic stapled anastomosis was the most performed anastomosis (36%). Most surgeons declared that they have never used prostheses for abdominal wall closure (64%), whereas 35% preferred retromuscular mesh placement in selected cases only. Forty-six respondents (66.7%) reported using interrupted stitches for skin closure, while 65 (29.7%) a purse-string suture. Furthermore, skin approximation at the stoma site using open methods was significantly more common among surgeons with greater experience in ileostomy reversal (p = 0.031). Overall, a good compliance with the ERAS protocol was found. However, colorectal surgeons were significantly more likely to follow the ERAS pathway than general surgeons (p < 0.05). Surgeons use different anastomotic techniques for ileostomy reversal after rectal cancer surgery. Based on current evidence, purse-string skin closure and ERAS pathway should be implemented, while the role of mesh prophylactic strategy needs to be explored further.

The objective of the current pilot trial was to evaluate whether ghost ileostomy is a safe alternative to the current standard of care in terms of a conventional loop ileostomy in patients undergoing low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision (LAR/TME) for rectal cancer.

This randomized controlled pilot trial included patients undergoing LAR/TME, randomly assigning them to ghost ileostomy or conventional loop ileostomy intraoperatively. Follow-up spanned 6 months, evaluating the following endpoints: comprehensive complication index (CCI), postoperative morbidity, transformation of ghost ileostomy, presence of ostomy at 6 months, Wexner score, and quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30 & CR29). Exploratory statistical analysis based on the intention-to-treat principle was conducted.

Recruiting 30 patients from May 2018 to September 2022, the trial was prematurely stopped due to slow recruitment. The mean CCI was comparable between groups at any point of time (at 6 months: 30.7 vs. 29.7, p = 0.889). There was no mortality and no need for creation of a terminal ostomy. Anastomotic leakage rates were similar in ghost ileostomy and loop ileostomy groups (p > 0.99). The ghost ileostomy was converted into a conventional loop ileostomy in 6 of 15 (40.0%) patients. Neither postoperative function, nor the overall quality of life showed significant differences.

Ghost ileostomy appears as a viable and safe option for selectively deciding ileostomy creation in LAR/TME for rectal cancer. However, challenges in patient selection, excluding those at high risk for anastomotic leakage, limit widespread application and call for optimization in future research.

German Clinical Trials Register ( https://drks.de/ ): DRKS00013997; date of registration: April 9th 2018.

The efficacy of diversion ileostomy followed by radical surgery for locally advanced upper-half rectal cancer remains uncertain. This study seeks to compare the effectiveness of treatment with and without diversion ileostomy in preventing anastomotic leakage (AL) and to identify a subset who may benefit from diversion ileostomy after AL occurs in Chinese patients with stage II and III upper-half rectal cancer. A retrospective study enrolled a total of 809 patients with locally advanced upper-half rectal cancer between 2017 and 2021, with 27.6% (n = 223) treated with diversion ileostomy and 72.4% (n = 586) treated without diversion ileostomy. The Diversion(+) group (n = 172) and Diversion(-) group (n = 172) were compared for perioperative outcomes through 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM). The selection of variables for multivariable logistic regression was determined through bivariate logistic regression analysis. Additionally, optimal cutoff values for risk factors were identified using ROC curve analysis. Within the entire cohort, patients in the Diversion(+) group exhibited a lower distance from the anal verge (DAV) and higher rates of chemoradiotherapy (CRT), diabetes, cN2 stage, mrCRM positivity, EMVI positivity, and CEA elevation compared to those in the Diversion(-) group. Following PSM, a satisfactory balance of baseline variables was achieved between the two groups. There were no statistically significant differences in AL rates (7.0% vs. 5.8%, p = 0.659) or AL grade distribution (Grade A: 0.6% vs. 0%, Grade B: 5.2% vs. 4.1%, Grade C: 1.2% vs. 1.7%, p = 0.691) between the two groups. However, the Diversion(+) group demonstrated a higher incidence of postoperative complications (30.8% vs. 17.4%, p = 0.004), Clavien‒Dindo III-IV complications (2.9% vs. 2.3%, p = 0.013), particularly wound infections (8.1% vs. 1.2%, p = 0.002), and early postoperative inflammatory small bowel obstruction (EPISBO) (8.7% vs. 1.2%, p = 0.001) compared to the Diversion(-) group. Results from multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that male gender (OR = 2.354, p = 0.014) was the only independent risk factor associated with AL, while the presence of diversion ileostomy (with vs. without, OR = 1.144, p = 0.686) did not show significant associations. In patients with AL, the onset of the AL was observed to occur later in the Diversion(+) group compared to the Diversion(-) group (7.0 ± 3.3 vs. 3.4 ± 1.4 days, p < 0.001), while the recovery time was significantly shorter (11.3 ± 4.7 vs. 20.3 ± 7.2 days, p < 0.001). Similarly, in Grade C AL patients, the occurence time was delayed in the Diversion(+) group compared to the Diversion(-) group (8.7 ± 4.7 vs. 3.2 ± 1.5 days, p = 0.008), with a shorter recovery time (19.3 ± 2.1 vs. 25.7 ± 6.7 days, p = 0.031). A trend was observed indicating a longer interval before ileostomy restoration in the AL patients compared to the non-AL patients (7.6 ± 4.9 months vs. 5.5 ± 2.9 months, p = 0.079). In addition, DAV (OR = 0.078, p = 0.002) was identified as the only independent factor associated with potential-diversion-benefit in patients with AL, with an optimal cutoff point of 8.6 cm. The utilization of diversion ileostomy as a preventative measure for AL in cases of locally advanced upper-half rectal cancer is not universally endorsed due to potential complications such as small bowel obstruction and wound infection. Nevertheless, in the occurrence of AL, diversion ileostomy may prove advantageous for patient recuperation. Particularly, male patients with a DAV ranging from 7 to 8.6 cm may experience benefits from undergoing diversion ileostomy subsequent to AL in cases of locally advanced upper-half rectal cancer.

To explore the decision-making factors for defunctioning ileostomy (DI) after rectal cancer surgery and to analyze the impact of the DI on perioperative outcomes.

A retrospective case-control study was conducted that included rectal cancer patients who underwent low anterior resection from January 2013 to December 2023. Among them, 33 patients did not undergo DI but with anastomotic leakage (AL) after surgery, and 1030 patients were without AL. Preoperative, operative and tumor factors between these two groups were compared to explore the decision-making factors for DI. Meanwhile, the differences of perioperative outcomes between the DI group of 381 cases and non-DI group of 701 cases were compared.

For preoperative factors, the proportions of male patients and preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in the AL with non-DI group were greater than those in the non-AL group (p < 0.05); for operative factors, the proportion of patients in the AL with non-DI group with a surgical time > 180 min were greater (p < 0.05); for tumor factors, the proportion of T3-4 stage was higher in the AL with non-DI group (p < 0.05). Multiple regression analysis revealed that male sex and preoperative CRT were the independent risk factors affecting DI. For perioperative outcomes, the DI did not reduce the incidence of all and symptomatic AL and non-AL postoperative complications (p > 0.05) but with 12.07% stoma-related complications, and increase hospitalization costs (p < 0.05); however, it can shorten the postoperative hospital stay, pelvic drainage tube removal time, and reduce the anal tube placement rate and readmission rate (all p < 0.05).

Male patients and preoperative CRT were the independent risk factors affect the decision of DI in our study, and DI can shorten the postoperative hospitalization, pelvic drainage tube removal time, and decrease the anal tube placement rate and readmission rate during the perioperative period but with a higher economic cost.

Low anterior resection (LAR) is the gold standard for curative cancer treatment in the middle and upper rectum. In radically operated patients, the local recurrence rates with total mesorectal excision (TME) after 5 and 10 years was<10%, with 80% in 5 years survival. Anastomotic leakage (AL) affects 4%-20% of patients who underwent LAR. Based on some studies, there is a risk reduction of symptomatic AL after LAR and the need for reoperation in patients with a defunctioning stoma (DS), also known as diverting stoma. Ileostomy has many complications, such as skin irritation and leakage, dehydration, obstruction, and parastomal hernia. Considering the complications of defunctioning loop-ileostomy (DLI) we designed this study to evaluate noninserting stoma in a particular group of patients.

This retrospective cohort case series study utilized data of 20 patients with rectal adenocarcinoma with lesion>7 cm from anal verge in rectoscopy who underwent LAR after 28 sessions of chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and 6 weeks of rehabilitation. All of the patients matched our criteria, so DLI was not performed on any of them.

Among our 20 patients, four AL were happened (20%). C-reactive protein (CRP) on post-operation day (POD) six was valuable. Computed tomography (CT) scan was not used as a reliable modality in our study. In all patients with positive AL, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was useful and reported correctly, and direct vision of the anastomosis site by rigid rectoscopy was not safe enough to make decisions about it.

The leakage rate was not far from the average leakage rate in other studies. Then it seems it is possible to forget about defunctioning loop stoma (DLS) in safe cases to reduce the stoma complications. Due to our restricted case selection and our close observation protocol, we had no significant complications compared to other studies. According to this study, not inserting stoma in suitable cases with restricted protocol selection is possible, and the leakage rate is not higher in comparison with patients with stoma.

There are three types of complications stoma related: ones related to its construction, ones related to its function and related to closure. The aim of this study was to assess the risk of complications related to the stoma presence and to identificate variables related to complications. We conducted a retrospective study of patients who underwent sphincter-preserving elective surgery for benign condition between January 2013 and December 2020 at IRCCS Sacro Cuore Don Calabria Hospital in Negrar, Verona. Data were collected regarding demographics and complications associated with primary surgery, stoma closure and the interval period. Univariable and multivariable analysIs were conducted. A total of 446 (12.2%) diverting loop ileostomies were performed. At index procedure, 76 (17%) patients had complications and 34 patients had complications related to ileostomy creation. Twenty patients (4.4%) were re admitted before stoma closure for dehydration. One hundred and eighty-seven patients (41.9%) suffered from ileostomy management's problems. At univariate analysis, complications of having stoma are more frequent in elder patients (p = 0.013), ASA score > 2 (p = 0.02), IBD diagnosis (p = < 0.001) and patients who had ileostomy creation complications (p = 0.04). At stoma closure, 55 (12.3%) patients had complications. Forty-seven patients (10.5%) presented incisional hernia in the stoma closure site. Ileostomy closure complications are more common with ASA score > 2 (p = 0.01) and IBD diagnosis (p < 0.001). IBD was found an independent factor of poor outcome at the time of ileostomy creation and closure. Developing complications at the time of ileostomy creation is statistically related to develop complications during ileostomy maintenance at multivariable analysis A loop ileostomy is usually created to limit the potentially life-threatening consequenceS of anastomotic leakage, but it is not able to decrease the leak-related mortality, wound sepsis, postoperative bleeding and small bowel obstruction. Debate rises not only for its uncertain efficacy but also because of the significant morbidity related to stoma. The surgeon could use these data in order to tailor his surgical strategy to the patients and their disease.

This current study attempted to investigate whether one-stitch method (OM) of temporary ileostomy influenced the stoma-related complications after laparoscopic low anterior resection (LLAR).

We searched for eligible studies in four databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and CNKI from inception to July 20, 2023. Both surgical outcomes and stoma-related complications were compared between the OM group and the traditional method (TM) group. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was adopted for quality assessment. RevMan 5.4 was conducted for data analyzing.

Totally 590 patients from six studies were enrolled in this study (272 patients in the OM group and 318 patients in the TM group). No significant difference was found in baseline information (P > 0.05). Patients in the OM group had shorter operative time in both the primary LLAR surgery (MD = - 17.73, 95%CI = - 25.65 to - 9.80, P < 0.01) and the stoma reversal surgery (MD = - 18.70, 95%CI = - 22.48 to -14.92, P < 0.01) than patients in the TM group. There was no significant difference in intraoperative blood loss of the primary LLAR surgery (MD = - 2.92, 95%CI = - 7.15 to 1.32, P = 0.18). Moreover, patients in the OM group had fewer stoma-related complications than patients in the TM group (OR = 0.55, 95%CI = 0.38 to 0.79, P < 0.01).

The OM group had shorter operation time in both the primary LLAR surgery and the stoma reversal surgery than the TM group. Moreover, the OM group had less stoma-related complications.

Surgical-site infections (SSIs) are the most common complication after stoma closure. We propose a new method for wound closure using the subcutaneous large-bite buried suture (SLBS) technique and a closed suction drain (CSD). In this study, we aimed to investigate the efficacy of a combination of the SLBS technique and a CSD to prevent superficial SSIs following stoma closure.

We retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent stoma closure between January 2019 and July 2022. Primary closure of the stomal site was performed using the SLBS technique and a CSD for wound closure. The CSD was placed until postoperative day 7. The occurrence of superficial postoperative SSIs was also evaluated.

In total, 67 patients were included in the study. Within 30 days postoperatively, nine patients (13%) developed superficial SSIs. Considering the type of stoma, only 1 (2%) of 45 patients with ileostomy showed superficial SSIs, whereas 8 (36%) of 22 patients with colostomy showed superficial SSIs. Univariate analysis of the risk factors associated with the occurrence of superficial SSIs revealed that colostomy (p < 0.001) and hand-sewn anastomosis were significant risk factors (p = 0.019). Multivariate analysis of the risk factors associated with the occurrence of superficial SSIs revealed that colostomy was significant risk factor (p = 0.003).

This new method of stoma closure is feasible for preventing superficial SSIs, especially in ileostomy closure.

Anastomotic leak (AL) is a complication of low anterior resection (LAR) that results in substantial morbidity. There is immense interest in evaluating immediate postoperative and long-term oncologic outcomes in patients who undergo diverting loop ileostomies (DLI). The purpose of this study is to understand the relationship between fecal diversion, AL, and oncologic outcomes.

This is a retrospective multicenter cohort study using patient data obtained from the US Rectal Cancer Consortium database compiled from six academic institutions. The study population included patients with rectal adenocarcinoma undergoing LAR. The primary outcome was the incidence of AL among patients who did or did not receive DLI during LAR. Secondary outcomes included risk factors for AL, receipt of adjuvant therapy, 3-year overall survival, and 3-year recurrence.

Of 815 patients, 38 (4.7%) suffered AL after LAR. Patients with AL were more likely to be male, have unintentional preoperative weight loss, and are less likely to undergo DLI. On multivariable analysis, DLI remained protective against AL (p < 0.001). Diverted patients were less likely to undergo future surgical procedures including additional ostomy creation, completion proctectomy, or pelvic washout for AL. Subgroup analysis of 456 patients with locally advanced disease showed that DLI was correlated with increased receipt of adjuvant therapy for patients with and without AL on univariate analysis (SHR:1.59; [95% CI 1.19-2.14]; p = 0.002), but significance was not met in multivariate models.

Lack of DLI and preoperative weight loss was associated with anastomotic leak. Fecal diversion may improve the timely initiation of adjuvant oncologic therapy. The long-term outcomes following routine diverting stomas warrant further study.

This study aimed to investigate the safety and feasibility of a novel stent-assisted ileal bypass for rectal cancer patients who received sphincter-preserving surgery.

Patients who were diagnosed with rectal cancer and received sphincter-preserving surgery plus a novel stent-assisted ileal bypass were respectively included from January 2022 to January 2023. Biofragmentable ileal stent with diaphragm sheet in the cavity was placed in the terminal ileum using absorbable sutures after anastomosis. At the proximal end of the stent, an intestinal diversion tube was placed in the prefabricated purse-string, through which faeces were drained. The stent completely disintegrated in the body after 3-4 weeks, which protected the anastomosis after surgery and avoided protective stoma. Clinical characteristics and surgical outcomes were collected.

Eleven patients who successfully received surgery were included. There were seven (63.6%) males and four (36.4%) females. The tumour size was 3.2 ± 1.7 cm and the lower verge of tumour to anal verge was 6.8 ± 1.3 cm. As for surgical outcomes, operation time was 216.4 ± 54.1 min, blood loss was 43.6 ± 64.6 mL, time to first flatus via intestinal diversion tube was 3.2 ± 1.1 days, time to discharge stent was 22.8 ± 3.0 days, and postoperative hospital stay was 21.0 ± 5.4 days. Two patients suffered from postoperative complications including pneumonia and incision infection.

This novel stent-assisted ileal bypass is safe and feasible, it provides a new choice for rectal cancer patients to avoid protective stoma and secondary surgery.

Anastomotic and rectal stump leaks are feared complications of colorectal surgery. Diverting stomas are commonly used to protect low rectal anastomoses but can have adverse effects. Studies have reported favorable outcomes for transanal drainage devices instead of diverting stomas. We describe our use of the Heald anal stent and its potential impact in reducing anastomotic or rectal stump leak after elective or emergency colorectal surgery. We performed a single-center retrospective analysis of patients in whom a Heald anal stent had been used to "protect" a colorectal anastomosis or a rectal stump, in an elective or emergency context, for benign and malignant pathology. Intraoperative and postoperative outcomes were reviewed using clinical and radiological records. The Heald anal stent was used in 93 patients over 4 years. Forty-six cases (49%) had a colorectal anastomosis, and 47 (51%) had an end stoma with a rectal stump. No anastomotic or rectal stump leaks were recorded. We recommend the Heald anal stent as a simple and affordable adjunct that may decrease anastomotic and rectal stump leak by reducing intraluminal pressure through drainage of fluid and gas.

Anastomotic leakage (AL) remains the most dreaded and unpredictable major complication after low anterior resection for mid-low rectal cancer. The aim of this study is to identify patients with high risk for AL based on the machine learning method.

Patients with mid-low rectal cancer undergoing low anterior resection were enrolled from West China Hospital between January 2008 and October 2019 and were split by time into training cohort and validation cohort. The least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) method and stepwise method were applied for variable selection and predictive model building in the training cohort. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and calibration curves were used to evaluate the performance of the models.

The rate of AL was 5.8% (38/652) and 7.2% (15/208) in the training cohort and validation cohort, respectively. The LASSO-logistic model selected almost the same variables (hypertension, operating time, cT4, tumor location, intraoperative blood loss) compared to the stepwise logistic model except for tumor size (the LASSO-logistic model) and American Society of Anesthesiologists score (the stepwise logistic model). The predictive performance of the LASSO-logistics model was better than the stepwise-logistics model (AUC: 0.790 vs. 0.759). Calibration curves showed mean absolute error of 0.006 and 0.013 for the LASSO-logistics model and stepwise-logistics model, respectively.

Our study developed a feasible predictive model with a machine-learning algorithm to classify patients with a high risk of AL, which would assist surgical decision-making and reduce unnecessary stoma diversion. The involved machine learning algorithms provide clinicians with an innovative alternative to enhance clinical management.

Anastomotic leakage is a serious complication following surgery for cancer of the rectum. It is not clear whether reinforcing sutures could prevent anastomotic leakage. Therefore, this study aims at evaluating the efficacy of reinforcing sutures on anastomotic leakage.

We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases from inception to January 31, 2023. We included studies comparing anastomosis with reinforcing sutures to anastomosis without reinforcing sutures after low anterior resection. Risk of bias was assessed by the Cochrane tool for RCTs and the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies (ROBINS)-I tool for observational studies. The overall quality of evidence for primary outcome was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluations methodology.

Two RCTs (345 patients) and four observational studies (783 patients) were included. Anastomotic leakage occurred in 4.4% (24 of 548) of patients with reinforcing sutures and 11.9% (69 of 580) of patients without reinforcing sutures. Meta-analysis showed a lower incidence of anastomotic leakage (RR, 0.41; 95% CI 0.25 to 0.66, low certainty) in patients with reinforcing sutures. Operative time (WMD, -3.66; 95% CI -18.58 to 11.25) and reoperation for anastomotic leakage (RR, 0.69; 95% CI 0.23 to 2.08) were similar between patients with reinforcing sutures and those without reinforcing sutures.

While observational data suggest that, there is a clear benefit in terms of reducing the risk of anastomotic leakage with the use of reinforcing sutures, RCT data are less clear. Further large, prospective studies are warranted to determine whether a true clinically important benefit exists with this technique.

Prophylactic loop ileostomy is an effective way to reduce the clinical severity of anastomotic leakage following radical resection of rectal cancer. Incisional surgical site infection (SSI) is a common complication after ileostomy closure.

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the micro-power negative pressure wound technique (MPNPWT) in preventing incisional SSI.

This was a prospective, randomized controlled clinical trial conducted at a single center. A total of 101 consecutive patients who underwent ileostomy closure after rectal cancer surgery with a prophylactic ileostomy were enrolled from January 2019 to December 2021. Patients were randomly allocated into an MPNPWT group and a control group. The MPNPWT group underwent intermittent suturing of the surgical incision with 2-0 Prolene and was covered with a micro-power negative pressure dressing. The surgical outcomes were compared between the MPNPWT (n = 50) and control (n = 51) groups. Risk factors for incisional SSI were identified using logistic regression.

There were no differences in baseline characteristics between the MPNPWT (n = 50) and control groups (n = 51). The incisional SSI rate was significantly higher in the control group than in the MPNPWT group (15.7% vs 2.0%, P = 0.031). However, MPNPWT did not affect other surgical outcomes, including intra-abdominal complications, operative time, and blood loss. Postoperative hospital stay length and hospitalization costs did not differ significantly between the two groups (P = 0.069 and 0.843, respectively). None of the patients experienced adverse effects of MPNPWT, including skin allergy, dermatitis, and pain. MPNPWT also helped heal the infected incision. Our study indicated that MPNPWT was an independent protective factor [odds ratio (OR) = 0.005, P = 0.025)] and diabetes was a risk factor (OR = 26.575, P= 0.029) for incisional SSI.

MPNPWT is an effective and safe way to prevent incisional SSI after loop ileostomy closure.

The selection of diverting ileostomy (DI) is controversial. This study aimed to explore the factors affecting the selection of diverting ileostomy (DI) following laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer.

This retrospective, case-control study included patients who underwent laparoscopic-assisted sphincter-saving surgery for mid-low rectal cancer from January 2019 to June 2021. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed on the patient's clinicopathological characteristics and pelvic dimensions measured by abdominopelvic electron beam computed tomography.

A total of 382 patients were included in the analysis, of which 182 patients (47.6%) did not undergo DI, and 200 patients (52.4%) underwent DI. The univariate analysis suggested that male sex (p = 0.003), preoperative radiotherapy (p < 0.001), patients with an anastomosis below the levator ani plane (p < 0.001), the intertuberous distance (p < 0.001), the sacrococcygeal distance (p = 0.025), the mid pelvis anteroposterior diameter (p = 0.009), and the interspinous distance (p < 0.001) were associated with performing DI. Multivariate analysis confirmed that preoperative radiotherapy (p = 0.037, odds ratio [OR] = 2.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.07-8.30), anastomosis below the levator ani plane (p < 0.001, OR = 7.09, 95% CI = 4.13-12.18), and the interspinous distance (p = 0.047, OR = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.93-1.00) were independently associated with performing DI.

Pelvic parameters also influence the choice of DI. According to this single-center experience, patients with a shorter interspinous distance, particularly narrow pelvic with an interspinous distance of < 94.8 mm, preoperative radiotherapy, and anastomosis below the levator ani plane, prefer to have a DI and should be adequately prepared by the physician.

Defunctioning ileostomies are often performed during rectal cancer surgery. However, stomas are sometimes associated with complications, while 20-30% of them are never reversed. Additionally, ileostomy closure can have associated morbidity, with rates as high as 45%, with the respective literature evidence being scarce and conflicting. Thus, we evaluated the stoma reversal outcomes and the risk factors for non-closure after rectal cancer surgery.

This is a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database of all patients who had a defunctioning ileostomy at the time of resection for rectal cancer. All operations were performed by the same surgical team. A multivariable regression model was implemented.

In this study, 129 patients (male: 68.2%, female: 31.8%) were included. Ileostomy formation was associated with a total of 31% complication rate. Eventually 73.6% of the stomas were reversed at a mean time to closure of 26.6 weeks, with a morbidity of 13.7%. Non-reversal of ileostomy was correlated with neoadjuvant CRT (OR: 0.093, 95% CI: 0.012-0.735), anastomotic leakage (OR: 0.107, 95% CI: 0.019-0.610), and lymph node yield (OR: 0.946, 95% CI: 0.897-0.998). Time to reversal was affected by the N status, the LNR, the need for adjuvant chemotherapy, and the histologic grade.

In patients with rectal cancer resections, defunctioning stoma closure rate and time to closure were associated with several perioperative and pathological outcomes.

Preventive colostomy is required for colorectal surgery, and the incidence of complications associated with ileostomy and colostomy remains controversial. This study aimed to compare the incidence of postoperative complications between ileostomy and colostomy procedures.

Data analysis was conducted on 30 studies, and meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA) were performed on five studies. The basic indicators, such as stoma prolapse, leak, wound infection, ileus, and a series of other indicators, were compared.

No statistically significant differences were observed with complications other than stoma prolapse. Meta-analysis and TSA showed that the incidence of ileostomy prolapse was lower than that of colostomy prolapse, and the difference was statistically significant. Apart from the four complications listed above, the general data analysis showed differences in incidence between the two groups. The incidence of skin irritation, parastomal hernia, dehydration, pneumonia, and urinary tract infections was higher with ileostomy than with colostomy. In contrast, the incidence of parastomal fistula, stenosis, hemorrhage, and enterocutaneous fistula was higher with colostomy than with ileostomy.

There were differences in the incidence of ileostomy and colostomy complications in the selected studies, with a low incidence of ileostomy prolapse.

CRD42022303133.

Prophylactic enterostomy surgery is a common surgical approach used to reduce the risk of anastomotic leakage in patients who have undergone partial intestinal resection due to trauma or tumors. However, the traditional interrupted suturing technique used in enterostomy closure surgery has several issues, including longer surgical incisions and higher incision tension, which can increase the risk of postoperative complications. To address these issues, scholars have proposed the use of a "gunsight suture" technique. This technique involves using a gunsight incision instead of a traditional linear incision, leaving a gap in the center for the drainage of blood and fluid to reduce the risk of infection. Building on this technique, we propose an improved gunsight suture technique. A drainage tube is placed at the lowest point of the incision and close the gap in the center of the gunsight suture, which theoretically facilitates early postoperative mobility and reduces the burden of dressing changes, thereby reducing the risk of postoperative complications.

To compare the effectiveness of improved gunsight suture technique with traditional interrupted suture in closing intestinal stomas.

In this study, a retrospective, single-center case analysis was conducted on 270 patients who underwent prophylactic ileostomy closure surgery at the Department of Colorectal Surgery of Qilu Hospital from April 2017 to December 2021. The patients were divided into two groups: 135 patients received sutures using the improved gunsight method, while the remaining 135 patients were sutured with the traditional interrupted suture method. We collected data on a variety of parameters, such as operation time, postoperative pain score, body temperature, length of hospital stays, laboratory indicators, incidence of incisional complications, number of wound dressing changes, and hospitalization costs. Non-parametric tests and chi-square tests were utilized for data analysis.

There were no statistically significant differences in general patient information between the two groups, including the interval between the first surgery and the stoma closure [132 (105, 184) d vs 134 (109, 181) d, P = 0.63], gender ratio (0.64 vs 0.69, P = 0.44), age [62 (52, 68) years vs 60 (52, 68) years, P = 0.33], preoperative body mass index (BMI) [23.83 (21.60, 25.95) kg/m² vs 23.12 (20.94, 25.06) kg/m², P = 0.17]. The incidence of incision infection in the improved gunsight suture group tended to be lower than that in the traditional interrupted suture group [ (n = 2/135, 1.4%) vs (n = 10/135, 7.4%), P < 0.05], and the postoperative hospital stay in the improved gunsight suture group was significantly shorter than that in the traditional interrupted suture group [5 (4, 7) d vs 7 (6, 8) d, P < 0.05]. Additionally, the surgical cost in the modified gunsight suture group was slightly lower than that in the traditional suture group [4840 (4330, 5138) yuan vs 4980 (4726, 5221) yuan, P > 0.05], but there was no significant difference in the total hospitalization cost between the two groups.

In stoma closure surgery, the improved gunsight technique can reduce the incision infection rate, shorten the postoperative hospital stay, reduce wound tension, and provide better wound cosmetic effects compared to traditional interrupted suture.

Anastomotic leakage (AL) following rectal cancer surgery is an important cause of mortality and recurrence. Although transanal drainage tubes (TDTs) are expected to reduce the rate of AL, their preventive effects are controversial.

To reveal the effect of TDT in patients with symptomatic AL after rectal cancer surgery.

A systematic literature search was performed using the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies (PCSs) in which patients were assigned to two groups depending on the use or non-use of TDT and in which AL was evaluated. The results of the studies were synthesized using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model, and a two-tailed P value > 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Three RCTs and two PCSs were included in this study. Symptomatic AL was examined in all 1417 patients (712 with TDT), and TDTs did not reduce the symptomatic AL rate. In a subgroup analysis of 955 patients without a diverting stoma, TDT reduced the symptomatic AL rate (odds ratio = 0.50, 95% confidence interval: 0.29-0.86, P = 0.012).

TDT may not reduce AL overall among patients undergoing rectal cancer surgery. However, patients without a diverting stoma may benefit from TDT placement.

Postoperative anastomotic leakage for rectal cancer shows higher morbidity with grievous concomitant symptoms. Accurate assessment of the incidence of anastomotic leakage, multivariate analysis, and establishment of a scientific prediction model can be useful to dispose of its possible severe clinical consequences.

This retrospective study collected 1995 consecutive patients who underwent anterior resection of rectal cancer with primary anastomosis at Northern Jiangsu People's Hospital between January 2016 and June 2022. Independent risk factors associated with anastomotic leakage were analyzed by univariate and multivariate logistic regression. The chosen independent risk factors were used to construct a nomogram risk prediction model whose availability was evaluated by using a bootstrapped-concordance index and calibration plots with R software.

A total of 1995 patients who underwent anterior resection for rectal cancer were included while 120 patients were diagnosed with anastomotic leakage, an incidence of 6.0%. Univariate analysis and its concomitant multivariate cox regression analysis indicated that independent risk factors associated with anastomotic leakage included male gender (odds ratio (OR) = 2.873), diabetes (OR = 2.480), neoadjuvant therapy (OR = 5.283), tumor's distance from the anus verge < 5 cm (OR = 5.824), tumor size ≥ 5 cm (OR = 4.888), and the blood lose > 50 mL (OR = 9.606).We established a nomogram prediction model with proper applicability (concordance index, 0.83) and the calibration curve to justify its predictive ability that the predicted occurrence probability keeps a high degree of consistency with the actual occurrence probability. Meanwhile, the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was 0.83.

The characteristics of patients and tumor surgery-related conditions can affect the incidence of anastomotic leakage. However, whether the surgical method will affect morbidity is still controversial. Our nomogram can be seen as an effective instrument to predict anastomotic leakage after anterior resection for rectal cancer precisely.

The safety of early stoma closure after lower anterior resection (LAR) for rectal cancer remains controversial. In this study, patients scheduled to undergo LAR and stoma creation for rectal cancer were recruited. In absence of anastomotic leakage on radiological examination, closure of the diverting ileostomy was performed within 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was incidence of the colorectal anastomosis leakage after early stoma closure. Because of the slow accrual rate, the study was closed before recruitment reached the planned number of patients (n = 20). Among the 13 patients enrolled between April 2019 and March 2021, early stoma closure was performed in seven patients (53.8%). Non-clinical anastomotic leakage, leakage identified only on radiological examination, occurred in five cases, resulting in rescheduling of stoma closure. One patient did not undergo early stoma closure due to ileus. After stoma closure, colorectal anastomotic leakage manifested in one case; its incidence rate was 14.2%. Surgical site infection occurred in 42.8% of patients. This study revealed that asymptomatic anastomotic leakage occurred frequently. Considering the low rate of successful cases and the high rate of complications, early stoma closure within 2 weeks after LAR should not be performed routinely. Trial registration: (UMIN000036382 registered on 03/04/2019).

Protective loop ileostomy is commonly performed in laparoscopic low anterior rectal resection to prevent the serious complications of anastomotic fistula. It is usually created at the right lower quadrant of the abdomen and another wound is required for stoma. The study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of ileostomy at the specimen extraction site (SES) and another site (AS) beside the auxiliary incision.

A retrospective analysis was conducted on 101 eligible patients with pathologically diagnosed adenocarcinoma of the rectum from January 2020 to December 2021 in the study center. According to whether the ileostomy was at the specimen extraction site, patients were divided into SES group (40 patients) and AS group (61 patients). Clinicopathological characteristics, the intraoperative details, and postoperative outcomes of the two groups were measured.

Univariate analysis showed that the operative time was significantly shorter and the blood loss was significantly less in the SES group than in the AS group during laparoscopic low anterior rectal resection, the time to first flatus was significantly shorter, and the pain was significantly less in the SES group than in the AS group during ileostomy closure. The postoperative complications were similar in both groups. Multivariable analysis showed that ileostomy at the specimen extraction site was a significant factor influencing the operative time and blood loss of rectal resection, and influencing the pain and the time to first flatus during ileostomy closure.

Compared to ileostomy at AS, protective loop ileostomy at SES was time-saving and less bleeding during laparoscopic low anterior rectal resection, and more quick to first flatus and less pain during stoma closure, and did not lead to more postoperative complications. The median incision of the lower abdomen and the left lower abdominal incision were both good sites for ileostomy.

Temporary loop ileostomy is usually performed to protect distal anastomosis or to treat urgent surgical cases. The aim of this study is to evaluate whether, after primary urgent stoma construction, patients undergoing ileostomy reversal have different postoperative outcomes compared with patients who have protective stoma performed in an elective setting. A retrospective observational study was conducted including patients who underwent ileostomy reversal. Baseline patient characteristics and perioperative outcomes were collected in a single database. The overall morbidity rate during recovery was fixed as a primary outcome. Between 2011 and 2021, the complete data records of 145 patients were evaluated. After ileostomy reversal, the postoperative morbidity rate did not differ between groups (14.4% vs. 11.5%, p = 0.790). Even considering each complication, such as ileus, small bowel obstruction, bleeding and wound infection, no significant difference was detected. Similarly, the time to first flatus was 2.25 ± 1.24 vs. 2.1 ± 0.99 (p = 0.379) and the length of hospital stay was 5.43 ± 3.03 vs. 5.84 ± 5.15 (p = 0.568). The only significant factor associated with postoperative complications on logistic regression analysis was the presence of comorbidities (OR 4.49; 95% CI 1.19-29.4, p = 0.05). In the present cohort of patients, there was no difference in the postoperative complication rate after stoma closure following elective or urgent indication for surgery.

Ovarian cancer is the most fatal of all female reproductive cancers. The fatality rate of OC is the highest among gynecological malignant tumors, and cytoreductive surgery is a common surgical procedure for patients with advanced ovarian cancer. To achieve satisfactory tumor reduction, intraoperative bowel surgery is often involved. Intestinal anastomosis is the traditional way to restore intestinal continuity, but the higher rate of postoperative complications still cannot be ignored. Transitory protective stoma can reduce the severity of postoperative complications and traumatic stress reaction and provide the opportunity for conservative treatment. But there are also many problems, such as stoma-related complications and the impact on social psychology. Therefore, it is essential to select appropriate patients according to the indications for the transitory protective stoma, and a customized postoperative care plan is needed specifically for the stoma population.

Colorectal anastomosis is a sophisticated problem that demands an elaborate discussion and an elegant solution. "Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana, Life of Reason , 1905.

This study aims to develop a robust preoperative prediction model for anastomotic leakage (AL) after surgical resection for rectal cancer, based on established risk factors and with the power of a large prospective nation-wide population-based study cohort.

A development cohort was formed by using the DCRA (Dutch ColoRectal Audit), a mandatory population-based repository of all patients who undergo colorectal cancer resection in the Netherlands. Patients aged 18 years or older were included who underwent surgical resection for rectal cancer with primary anastomosis (with or without deviating ileostomy) between 2011 and 2019. Anastomotic leakage was defined as clinically relevant leakage requiring reintervention. Multivariable logistic regression was used to build a prediction model and cross-validation was used to validate the model.

A total of 13.175 patients were included for analysis. AL was diagnosed in 1319 patients (10%). A deviating stoma was constructed in 6853 patients (52%). The following variables were identified as significant risk factors and included in the prediction model: gender, age, BMI, ASA classification, neo-adjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy, cT stage, distance of the tumor from anal verge, and deviating ileostomy. The model had a concordance-index of 0.664, which remained 0.658 after cross-validation. In addition, a nomogram was developed.

The present study generated a discriminative prediction model based on preoperatively available variables. The proposed score can be used for patient counselling and risk-stratification before undergoing rectal resection for cancer.

Anastomotic leak (AL) is a potentially life-threatening complication after low anterior resection (LAR). This meta-analysis aimed to compare outcomes of LAR with and without diverting stoma and to determine factors associated with AL in non-diverted patients.

This was a PRISMA-compliant systematic review of electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science). Randomized controlled trials comparing LAR with and without diverting stoma were included. Main outcome measures were AL, complications, and operation time in the two groups and risk factors of AL in non-diverted patients.

Nine randomized control trials (RCTs) (946 patients; 53.2% male) were included. The diverting stoma group had lower odds of complications (OR: 0.61, 95%CI: 0.461-0.828; p < 0.001), AL (OR: 0.362, 95%CI: 0.236-0.555; p < 0.001, I2 = 0), abscess (OR: 0.392, 95%CI: 0.174-0.883; p < 0.024, I2 = 0), and reoperation (OR: 0.352, 95%CI: 0.222-0.559, p < 0.001, I2 = 0) than the no-diversion group. Both groups had comparable odds of bowel obstruction, surgical site infection, and perioperative mortality. The weighted mean operation time in the diverting stoma group was longer than the no-diversion group (WMD: 34.804, 95%CI: 14.649-54.960, p < 0.001). Factors significantly associated with AL in non-diverted patients were higher body mass index (BMI), ASA ≥ 3, lower tumor height, neoadjuvant therapy, open surgery, end-to-end anastomosis, and longer operation time.

Non-diverted patients with increased body mass index, high American Society of Anesthesiologists scores, low rectal cancers, received neoadjuvant therapy, underwent open surgery, end-to-end anastomosis, and longer operation times were at a higher risk of AL after LAR.

The efficacy of laparoscopic vs open surgery for patients with low rectal cancer has not been established.

To compare the short-term efficacy of laparoscopic surgery vs open surgery for treatment of low rectal cancer.

This multicenter, noninferiority randomized clinical trial was conducted in 22 tertiary hospitals across China. Patients scheduled for curative-intent resection of low rectal cancer were randomized at a 2:1 ratio to undergo laparoscopic or open surgery. Between November 2013 and June 2018, 1070 patients were randomized to laparoscopic (n = 712) or open (n = 358) surgery. The planned follow-up was 5 years. Data analysis was performed from April 2021 to March 2022.

Eligible patients were randomized to receive either laparoscopic or open surgery.

The short-term outcomes included pathologic outcomes, surgical outcomes, postoperative recovery, and 30-day postoperative complications and mortality.

A total of 1039 patients (685 in laparoscopic and 354 in open surgery) were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (median [range] age, 57 [20-75] years; 620 men [59.7%]; clinical TNM stage II/III disease in 659 patients). The rate of complete mesorectal excision was 85.3% (521 of 685) in the laparoscopic group vs 85.8% (266 of 354) in the open group (difference, -0.5%; 95% CI, -5.1% to 4.5%; P = .78). The rate of negative circumferential and distal resection margins was 98.2% (673 of 685) vs 99.7% (353 of 354) (difference, -1.5%; 95% CI, -2.8% to 0.0%; P = .09) and 99.4% (681 of 685) vs 100% (354 of 354) (difference, -0.6%; 95% CI, -1.5% to 0.5%; P = .36), respectively. The median number of retrieved lymph nodes was 13.0 vs 12.0 (difference, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.1-1.9; P = .39). The laparoscopic group had a higher rate of sphincter preservation (491 of 685 [71.7%] vs 230 of 354 [65.0%]; difference, 6.7%; 95% CI, 0.8%-12.8%; P = .03) and shorter duration of hospitalization (8.0 vs 9.0 days; difference, -1.0; 95% CI, -1.7 to -0.3; P = .008). There was no significant difference in postoperative complications rate between the 2 groups (89 of 685 [13.0%] vs 61 of 354 [17.2%]; difference, -4.2%; 95% CI, -9.1% to -0.3%; P = .07). No patient died within 30 days.

In this randomized clinical trial of patients with low rectal cancer, laparoscopic surgery performed by experienced surgeons was shown to provide pathologic outcomes comparable to open surgery, with a higher sphincter preservation rate and favorable postoperative recovery.

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01899547.

Defunctioning loop ileostomies are used commonly, but there are significant morbidities.

This study aimed to describe the morbidity and mortality associated with the formation and closure of defunctioning loop ileostomies.

This descriptive study is based on electronic health records and claims data.

This study was conducted at academic and community hospitals in Ontario, Canada.

Adult patients who had a low anterior resection with concurrent defunctioning loop ileostomy from 2002 to 2014 were included.

Outcomes of interest included 30-day major complications, acute kidney injury, transfusion, and deep space infection. The rate of ileostomy reversal and the percentage of permanent ostomies were also collected.

The cohort consists of 4658 patients who underwent low anterior resection with concurrent defunctioning loop ileostomy. The 30-day, 90-day, and 1-year mortality rates of these patients were 1.2%, 2.2%, and 5.1%. The rate of reoperation was 5.5%, the rate of hospital readmission was 13.4%, the rate of major complications was 28.5%, the rate of deep organ/space infection requiring percutaneous intervention was 5.2%, and the rate of acute kidney injury requiring hospitalization was 10.4%. Eighty-six percent had their ileostomy reversed, leaving 13.2% with a permanent ostomy. After ileostomy reversal, 30-day and 90-day mortality rates were 0.6% and 0.9%. The rate of major complications was 10.3%, bowel obstruction 7%, ventral hernia 10.5%, deep space infection 1.7%, and repeat operation 2.3%.

This study is based on electronic health records and claims data and, thus, the accuracy of results depends on the accuracy of data administration' which can be variable across institutions.

Morbidity and mortality of defunctioning loop ileostomies are significant. One in 8 patients will have a permanent ostomy. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B810 .

ANTECEDENTES:Las ileostomías en asa derivativa se utilizan con frecuencia, pero existen morbilidades importantes.OBJETIVO:Describir la morbilidad y mortalidad asociadas con la formación y cierre de ileostomías en asa derivativa.DISEÑO:Estudio descriptivo basado en historias clínicas electrónicas y datos de reclamaciones.ENTORNO CLINICO:Hospitales académicos y comunitarios en Ontario, Canadá.PACIENTES:Pacientes adultos sometidos a resección anterior baja con concurrente ileostomía en asa derivativa de 2002 a 2014.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACION:Los resultados de interés incluyeron complicaciones mayores a los 30 días, lesión renal aguda, transfusión e infección del espacio profundo. También se recolectó la tasa de reversión de la ileostomía y el porcentaje de ostomías permanentes.RESULTADOS:La cohorte consistió de 4658 pacientes sometidos a resección anterior baja con concurrente ileostomía en asa derivativa. La mortalidad de estos pacientes, a treinta días, 90 días y un año, fue del 1,2%, 2,2% y 5,1%, respectivamente. La tasa de reintervención fue del 5,5%, el reingreso hospitalario fue del 13,4%, la complicación mayor fue del 28,5%, la infección profunda de órganos / espacios que requirieron intervención percutánea fue del 5,2%, y la lesión renal aguda que requirió hospitalización fue del 10,4%. Ochenta y seis por ciento tuvieron reversión de su ileostomía, dejando al 13.2% con una ostomía permanente. Después de la reversión de la ileostomía, la mortalidad a los 30 días y 90 días fue de 0,6% y 0,9%, respectivamente. La tasa de complicaciones mayores fue del 10,3%, obstrucción intestinal del 7%, hernia ventral del 10,5%, infección del espacio profundo del 1,7% y reintervención del 2,3%.LIMITACIONES:El estudio se basa en registros médicos electrónicos y datos de reclamos y, por lo tanto, la precisión de los resultados depende de la precisión en la administración de datos, que pueden variar entre instituciones.CONCLUSIONES:La morbilidad y la mortalidad de las ileostomías en asa derivativa son significativas. Uno de cada 8 pacientes tendrá una ostomía permanente. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B810 . (Traducción-Dr. Fidel Ruiz Healy ).

The purpose of the current study was to compare the outcomes of temporary stoma through the specimen extraction site (SSES) and stoma through a new site (SNS) after laparoscopic low anterior resection.

The rectal cancer patients who underwent laparoscopic low anterior resection plus temporary ileostomy were recruited in a single clinical database from Jun 2013 to Jun 2020. The SSES group and the SNS group were compared using propensity score matching (PSM) analysis.

A total of 257 rectal cancer patients were included in this study, there were 162 patients in the SSES group and 95 patients in the SNS group. After 1:1 ratio PSM, there was no difference in baseline information (p > 0.05). The SSES group had smaller intraoperative blood loss (p = 0.016 < 0.05), shorter operation time (p < 0.01) and shorter post-operative hospital stay (p = 0.021 < 0.05) than the SNS group before PSM. However, the SSES group shorter operation time (p = 0.006 < 0.05) than the SNS group after PSM, moreover, there was no significant difference in stoma-related complications (p > 0.05). In the multivariate analysis, longer operation time was an independent factor (p = 0.019 < 0.05, OR = 1.006, 95% CI = 1.001-1.011) for the stoma-related complications.

Based on the current evidence, the SSES group had smaller intraoperative blood loss, shorter operation time and shorter post-operative hospital stay before PSM, and shorter operation time after PSM. Therefore, SSES might be superior than SNS after laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer patients.

Defunctioning stoma (DS) can decrease the rate of symptomatic anastomotic leakage (AL). Since 2010, we have used tailored, highly selective DS management for low colorectal anastomosis (LCRA).

In total, 433 rectal cancer patients underwent the same standardized procedure. Non-stoma (NS) management was used in patients with no surgical difficulties as well as good colonic preparation and quality of anastomoses. In all other cases, DS was used. C-reactive protein was measured during postoperative follow-up. Imbalance in the initial population was adjusted using propensity-score matching according to sex, age, body mass index, tumor location, and American Society of Anesthesiologists score. Rate of AL within 30 days, 5-year overall survival, local relapse-free survival, and disease-free survival were recorded.

Anastomosis was mostly ultra-low and was performed equally by laparoscopy or robotic surgery. The overall rate of AL was 13.4%, with no significant differences between groups (DS, 12.2%; NS, 14.6%; p = 0.575). Operative time, blood loss, and hospital stay were significantly lower for NS patients. The rate of secondary stoma was 11.4% overall. Pathological results were similar, with a 98% R0 resection rate. With a median follow-up of 5.5 years for the NS and DS groups, the overall survival was 84.9% and 73.4%, respectively (p = 0.064), disease-free survival was 67.0% and 55.8%, respectively (p = 0.095), and local relapse-free survival was 95.2% and 88.7%, respectively (p = 0.084). The long-term, stoma-free rate was 89.1% overall.

Tailoring DS for LCRA seems safe and could provide potential benefits in postoperative morbidity with the same long-term oncological results in NS patients. Prospective, multicentric studies should validate this approach.

Our previously published clinical studies described the short-term outcomes of a newly developed intraluminal fecal diverting device (FDD). FDD was a safe and effective substitute for a defunctioning stoma. However, the long-term efficacy and safety of this device remain unknown. We investigated the long-term outcomes of the use of the FDD as a substitute for a defunctioning stoma.

We examined the medical records of patients who participated in our two previous FDD clinical studies. The main outcome was the number of patients with bowel continuity for 2 years after undergoing the FDD procedure or defunctioning stoma creation.

Between May 2015 and July 2018, 85 patients were screened for inclusion in this study. Of those, 27 patients underwent a defunctioning ileostomy after proctectomy. The remaining 58 underwent the FDD procedure after proctectomy. Seventy-two patients (ileostomy group, n = 22; FDD group, n = 50) with a follow-up duration > 24 months were included in this analysis. The mean duration of fecal diversion was significantly shorter (p < 0.001) in the FDD group (3.1 [1.6-6.1] weeks) than in the ileostomy group (16.7 [10.0-31.6] weeks). However, the rate of permanent stoma creation was not statistically different between the two groups (ileostomy and FDD groups, 13.6% [3/22] and 10.0% [5/50], respectively; p = 0.693).

The FDD procedure is a feasible substitute for a defunctioning stoma after proctectomy. Multicenter large-scaled clinical studies are required to validate our results.

The safety of colorectal surgery for oncological disease is steadily improving, but anastomotic leakage is still the most feared and devastating complication from both a surgical and oncological point of view. Anastomotic leakage affects the outcome of the surgery, increases the times and costs of hospitalization, and worsens the prognosis in terms of short- and long-term outcomes. Anastomotic leakage has a wide range of clinical features ranging from radiological only finding to peritonitis and sepsis with multi-organ failure. C-reactive protein and procalcitonin have been identified as early predictors of anastomotic leakage starting from postoperative day 2-3, but abdominal-pelvic computed tomography scan is still the gold standard for the diagnosis. Several treatments can be adopted for anastomotic leakage. However, there is not a universally accepted flowchart for the management, which should be individualized based on patient's general condition, anastomotic defect size and location, indication for primary resection and presence of the proximal stoma. Non-operative management is usually preferred in patients who underwent proximal faecal diversion at the initial operation. Laparoscopy can be attempted after minimal invasive surgery and can reduce surgical stress in patients allowing a definitive treatment. Reoperation for sepsis control is rarely necessary in those patients who already have a diverting stoma at the time of the leak, especially in extraperitoneal anastomoses. In patients without a stoma who do not require abdominal reoperation for a contained pelvic leak, there are several treatment options, including laparoscopic diverting ileostomy combined with trans-anal anastomotic tube drainage, percutaneous drainage or recently developed endoscopic procedures, such as stent or clip placement or endoluminal vacuum-assisted therapy. We describe the current approaches to treat this complication, as well as the clinical tests necessary to diagnose and provide an effective therapy.

Stoma site incisional hernias after ileostomy closure are complex hernias that can be associated with abdominal pain, discomfort, and a diminished quality of life. The aim of this study was to determine the incidence of incisional hernia (IH) following temporary ileostomy reversal in patients undergoing colorectal surgery, and the risk factors associated with its development.

This was a prospective, single-centre, cohort study of patients undergoing ileostomy reversal between January 2010 and December 2016. Comorbidities, operative characteristics, comparison between early and late ileostomy closure and postoperative complications were analysed.

A total of 202 consecutive patients were prospectively evaluated (median follow-up 46 months; range: 12-109). Stoma site incisional hernia occurred in 23% of patients (n = 47), diagnosed by physical examination or imaging tests. The reasons for the primary surgery were colorectal cancer (n = 141, 69.8%), inflammatory bowel disease (n = 14, 6.9%), emergency surgery (n = 35, 17.3%), and other conditions (n = 12, 5.9%). Secondary outcomes: a statistically significant risk factors for developing an IH was obesity (higher BMI) (OR 1.15, 95% CI: 1.05-1.26) p = .003).

23% of patients developed surgical site IH, a higher BMI being the only risk factor found to be statistically significant in the development of an incisional hernia.