PDF herunterladen
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Journal of Coloproctology 2021; 41(02): 131-137
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1730040
Original Article

Role of Covering Ileostomy in Causation of Anastomotic Strictures in Low Anterior Resections for Rectum Carcinoma

O papel da ileostomia de proteção como causa das estenoses anastomóticas nas ressecções anteriores de reto
Mudassir Ahmad Khan 
1   Department of General Surgery, Govt Medical College Hospital, Rajouri, J&K, India
,
Rauf A. Wani
2   Department of Colorectal Surgery SKIMS, Srinagar, J&K, India
,
Asif Mehraj
2   Department of Colorectal Surgery SKIMS, Srinagar, J&K, India
,
Arshad Baba
3   Directorate of Health Services, J&K, India
,
Mushtaq Laway
3   Directorate of Health Services, J&K, India
,
Nisar A. Chowdri
2   Department of Colorectal Surgery SKIMS, Srinagar, J&K, India
,
Fazl Q. Parray
2   Department of Colorectal Surgery SKIMS, Srinagar, J&K, India
› Institutsangaben Funding Information The present research project did not receive any grants from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
› Weitere Informationen
   Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Background Colorectal resection anastomosis is the commonest cause of rectal strictures. Anastomotic site ischemia, incomplete doughnuts from stapled anastomosis and pelvic infection, are some of the risk factors that play a role in the development of postoperative rectal strictures. However, the role of diverting stoma in the development of rectal strictures has not been studied extensively.

Objectives To study the difference in the occurrence of anastomotic strictures (AS) in patients submitted to low anterior resection (LAR) with covering ileostomy (CI), and to LAR without CI for carcinoma rectum.

Methods This was a prospective, comparative case control study carried out at a tertiary care referral center. Low anterior resection with covering ileostomy was performed in patients with rectum carcinoma in the study group, while LAR without covering ileostomy was performed in the control group. The study group had 29 patients, while the control group had 33 patients with rectum carcinoma.

Results During the mean follow-up period of 9.1months, 8 (28%) patients in the study group and 2 (6%) patients in the control group developed AS (p =0.019). Out of these 8 patients with AS in the study group, 50% had Grade-I AS, 25% had Grade-II AS, while 25% of the patients had Grade-III (severe) AS. However, both patients who developed AS in the control group had a mild type (Grade I) of AS.

Conclusion Covering ileostomy increases the chances of AS formation after LAR for rectum carcinoma. Also, the SKIMS Clinical Grading of Rectal Strictures is a simple and handy tool available for every surgeon to grade, classify and monitor the postoperative rectal strictures.

Resumo

Introdução A anastomose de ressecção colorretal é a causa mais comum de estenoses retais. A isquemia do local da anastomose, donuts (anéis) incompletos de anastomose grampeada e infecção pélvica são alguns dos fatores de risco que desempenham um papel no desenvolvimento de estenoses retais pós-operatórias. No entanto, o papel do estoma de desvio no desenvolvimento de estenoses retais não foi estudado extensivamente.

Objetivos Estudar a diferença na ocorrência de estenoses anastomóticas (EA) em pacientes submetidos à ressecção anterior baixa (LAR) com ileostomia de proteção e a LAR sem ileostomia de proteção para carcinoma de reto.

Métodos Este foi um estudo prospectivo e comparativo de caso-controle realizado em um centro de referência de atenção terciária. A ressecção anterior baixa com ileostomia de proteção foi realizada em pacientes com carcinoma de reto no grupo de estudo, enquanto LAR sem ileostomia de proteção foi realizada no grupo controle. O grupo de estudo tinha 29 pacientes, enquanto o grupo controle tinha 33 pacientes com carcinoma de reto.

Resultados Durante o período de acompanhamento médio de 9, 1 meses, 8 (28%) pacientes no grupo de estudo e 2 (6%) pacientes no grupo controle desenvolveram EA (p = 0,019). Destes 8 pacientes com EA no grupo de estudo, 50% tinham EA de Grau I, 25% tinham EA de Grau II, enquanto 25% dos pacientes tinham EA de Grau III (grave). No entanto, ambos os pacientes que desenvolveram EA no grupo de controle tinham um tipo leve (Grau I) de EA.

Conclusão A ileostomia de proteção aumenta as chances de formação de AS após LAR para carcinoma de reto. Além disso, o SKIMS Clinical Grading of Rectal Strictures é uma ferramenta simples e útil disponível para cada cirurgião para graduar, classificar e monitorar as estenoses retais pós-operatórias.

Keywords

low anterior resection - covering ileostomy - anastomotic stricture - anastomotic leak - rectal cancer

Palavras-chave

ressecção anterior baixa - ileostomia de proteção - estenose anastomótica - vazamento anastomótico - câncer retal

Limitations of the Present Study

Since the present study is a small sized, nonrandomized study, we suggest that further large sized, multi-institutional randomized controlled trials (RCTs) be performed in order to confirm or refute our results.


Author Contributions

All authors have contributed equally to the present study.




Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 13. Oktober 2020

Angenommen: 18. Januar 2021

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
30. Juni 2021

© 2021. Sociedade Brasileira de Coloproctologia. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commecial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.
Rua do Matoso 170, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20270-135, Brazil

 

  • References

  • 1 Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, Forman D, Mathers C, Parkin DM. Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008. Int J Cancer 2010; 127 (12) 2893-2917
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Griffen FD, Knight Sr CD, Whitaker JM, Knight Jr CD. The double stapling technique for low anterior resection. Results, modifications, and observations. Ann Surg 1990; 211 (06) 745-751 , discussion 751–752
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Bertelsen CA, Andreasen AH, Jørgensen T, Harling H. Danish Colorectal Cancer Group. Anastomotic leakage after curative anterior resection for rectal cancer: short and long-term outcome. Colorectal Dis 2010; 12 (7 Online): e76-e81
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Eberl T, Jagoditsch M, Klingler A, Tschmelitsch J. Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after resection for rectal cancer. Am J Surg 2008; 196 (04) 592-598
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Chude GG, Rayate NV, Patris V. et al. Defunctioning loop ileostomy with low anterior resection for distal rectal cancer: should we make an ileostomy as a routine procedure? A prospective randomized study. Hepatogastroenterology 2008; 55 (86-87): 1562-1567
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Pata G, D'Hoore A, Fieuws S, Penninckx F. Mortality risk analysis following routine vs selective defunctioning stoma formation after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Colorectal Dis 2009; 11 (08) 797-805
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Karanjia ND, Corder AP, Bearn P, Heald RJ. Leakage from stapled low anastomosis after total mesorectal excision for carcinoma of the rectum. Br J Surg 1994; 81 (08) 1224-1226
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Karanjia ND, Corder AP, Holdsworth PJ, Heald RJ. Risk of peritonitis and fatal septicaemia and the need to defunction the low anastomosis. Br J Surg 1991; 78 (02) 196-198
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Hautefeuille P, Valeur P, Perniceni T. et al. Functional and oncologic results after colo-anal anastomosis for low rectal carcinoma. Ann Surg 1988; 207 (01) 61-64
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Bakx R, Busch OR, Bemelman WA, Veldink GJ, Slors JF, van Lanschot JJ. Morbidity of temporary loop ileostomies. Dig Surg 2004; 21 (04) 277-281
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Cipe G, Erkek B, Kuzu A, Gecim E. Morbidity and mortality after the closure of a protective loop ileostomy: analysis of possible predictors. Hepatogastroenterology 2012; 59 (119) 2168-2172
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Hallböök O, Matthiessen P, Leinsköld T, Nyström PO, Sjödahl R. Safety of the temporary loop ileostomy. Colorectal Dis 2002; 4 (05) 361-364
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Kaiser AM, Israelit S, Klaristenfeld D. et al. Morbidity of ostomy takedown. J Gastrointest Surg 2008; 12 (03) 437-441
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Laurent C, Nobili S, Rullier A, Vendrely V, Saric J, Rullier E. Efforts to improve local control in rectal cancer compromise survival by the potential morbidity of optimal mesorectal excision. J Am Coll Surg 2006; 203 (05) 684-691
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Law WL, Chu KW, Choi HK. Randomized clinical trial comparing loop ileostomy and loop transverse colostomy for faecal diversion following total mesorectal excision. Br J Surg 2002; 89 (06) 704-708
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 van Westreenen HL, Visser A, Tanis PJ, Bemelman WA. Morbidity related to defunctioning ileostomy closure after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis and low colonic anastomosis. Int J Colorectal Dis 2012; 27 (01) 49-54 . doi: 10.1007/s00384-011-1276-7. PMID: 21761119
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Åkesson O, Syk I, Lindmark G, Buchwald P. Morbidity related to defunctioning loop ileostomy in low anterior resection. Int J Colorectal Dis 2012; 27 (12) 1619-1623
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Shiomi A, Ito M, Maeda K. et al. Effects of a diverting stoma on symptomatic anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a propensity score matching analysis of 1,014 consecutive patients. J Am Coll Surg 2015; 220 (02) 186-194
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Garcea G, Sutton CD, Lloyd TD, Jameson J, Scott A, Kelly MJ. Management of benign rectal strictures: a review of present therapeutic procedures. Dis Colon Rectum 2003; 46 (11) 1451-1460 DOI: 10.1007/s10350-004-6792-x.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Brochard C, Siproudhis L, Wallenhorst T. et al. Anorectal stricture in 102 patients with Crohn's disease: natural history in the era of biologics. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2014; 40 (07) 796-803
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Bannura GC, Cumsille MA, Barrera AE, Contreras JP, Melo CL, Soto DC. Predictive factors of stenosis after stapled colorectal anastomosis: prospective analysis of 179 consecutive patients. World J Surg 2004; 28 (09) 921-925
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Hughes LE. Clinical classification of perianal Crohn's disease. Dis Colon Rectum 1992; 35 (10) 928-932 DOI: 10.1007/BF02253493. [PMID: 1395978]
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Edge SB, Compton CC. The American Joint Committee on Cancer: the 7th edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual and the future of TNM. Ann Surg Oncol 2010; 17 (06) 1471-1474
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Castro PM, Ribeiro FP, Rocha Ade F, Mazzurana M, Alvarez GA. Hand-sewn versus stapler esophagogastric anastomosis after esophageal ressection: systematic review and meta-analysis. Arq Bras Cir Dig 2014; 27 (03) 216-221
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Wang W-P, Gao Q, Wang K-N, Shi H, Chen L-Q. A prospective randomized controlled trial of semi-mechanical versus hand-sewn or circular stapled esophagogastrostomy for prevention of anastomotic stricture. World J Surg 2013; 37 (05) 1043-1050
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Karliczek A, Harlaar NJ, Zeebregts CJ, Wiggers T, Baas PC, van Dam GM. Surgeons lack predictive accuracy for anastomotic leakage in gastrointestinal surgery. Int J Colorectal Dis 2009; 24 (05) 569-576
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Hashemi M, Novell JR, Lewis AA. Side-to-side stapled anastomosis may delay recurrence in Crohn's disease. Dis Colon Rectum 1998; 41 (10) 1293-1296
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Guyton KL, Hyman NH, Alverdy JC. Prevention of Perioperative Anastomotic Healing Complications: Anastomotic Stricture and Anastomotic Leak. Adv Surg 2016; 50 (01) 129-141 DOI: 10.1016/j.yasu.2016.03.011.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Chen TA, Hsu WL. Successful treatment of colorectal anastomotic stricture by using sphincterotomes. Front Surg 2014; 1: 22 (1-3). Doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2014.00022. PMID: 25593946
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Anseline PF, Lavery IC, Fazio VW, Jagelman DG, Weakley FL. Radiation injury of the rectum: evaluation of surgical treatment. Ann Surg 1981; 194 (06) 716-724 DOI: 10.1097/00000658-198112000-00010.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Lim M, Akhtar S, Sasapu K. et al. Clinical and subclinical leaks after low colorectal anastomosis: a clinical and radiologic study. Dis Colon Rectum 2006; 49 (10) 1611-1619 DOI: 10.1007/s10350-006-0663-6.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Schlegel RD, Dehni N, Parc R, Caplin S, Tiret E. Results of reoperations in colorectal anastomotic strictures. Dis Colon Rectum 2001; 44 (10) 1464-1468 DOI: 10.1007/BF02234598.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Kumar A, Daga R, Vijayaragavan P. et al. Anterior resection for rectal carcinoma - risk factors for anastomotic leaks and strictures. World J Gastroenterol 2011; 17 (11) 1475-1479
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Werre A, Mulder C, van Heteren C, Bilgen ES. Dilation of benign strictures following low anterior resection using Savary-Gilliard bougies. Endoscopy 2000; 32 (05) 385-388 DOI: 10.1055/s-2000-8999. [PMID: 10817177]
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Paluvoi NV, Lee SW. Patient Develops Anastomotic Stricture After Low Anastomosis with Diverting Ileostomy. In: Lee S, Steele S, Feingold D, Ross H, Rivadeneira D. eds. Colorectal Surgery Consultation. Cham: Springer; 2019. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-11181-6_30
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Baird R, Laberge J-M, Lévesque D. Anastomotic stricture after esophageal atresia repair: a critical review of recent literature. Eur J Pediatr Surg 2013; 23 (03) 204-213
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar