PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare surgical outcome, after low anterior resection for rectal cancer with colonic J-pouch, at two departments with a different policy regarding the use of a routine diverting stoma. METHODS: A total of 161 consecutive patients with invasive rectal carcinomas operated on between 1990 and 1997 with a total mesorectal excision and a colonic J-pouch were included in the study. Eighty patients were operated on in a surgical unit using routine defunctioning stomas (96 percent), whereas 81 were operated on in a department in which diversion was rarely used (5 percent). Recorded data with respect to surgical outcome were analyzed and compared. RESULTS: There was no difference between the two centers in postoperative mortality in connection with the primary resection and subsequent stoma reversal (3.7 vs. 3.8 percent). No significant difference could be found in the number of patients with pelvic sepsis (anastomotic leaks; 9 vs.12 percent). Surgical outcome in patients with pelvic sepsis was also similar. The frequency of reoperations associated with the anterior resection and subsequent stoma reversal was identical (14 percent). The total hospital stay (primary operation and stoma reversal) was significantly longer with than without a routine stoma (17 (range, 2-59) vs. 12 (range, 5-55) days, respectively; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This study suggests that the routine use of diversion does not protect the patient from anastomotic complications or pelvic sepsis and its use requires a second admission for closure.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare surgical outcome, after low anterior resection for rectal cancer with colonic J-pouch, at two departments with a different policy regarding the use of a routine diverting stoma. METHODS: A total of 161 consecutive patients with invasive rectal carcinomas operated on between 1990 and 1997 with a total mesorectal excision and a colonic J-pouch were included in the study. Eighty patients were operated on in a surgical unit using routine defunctioning stomas (96 percent), whereas 81 were operated on in a department in which diversion was rarely used (5 percent). Recorded data with respect to surgical outcome were analyzed and compared. RESULTS: There was no difference between the two centers in postoperative mortality in connection with the primary resection and subsequent stoma reversal (3.7 vs. 3.8 percent). No significant difference could be found in the number of patients with pelvic sepsis (anastomotic leaks; 9 vs.12 percent). Surgical outcome in patients with pelvic sepsis was also similar. The frequency of reoperations associated with the anterior resection and subsequent stoma reversal was identical (14 percent). The total hospital stay (primary operation and stoma reversal) was significantly longer with than without a routine stoma (17 (range, 2-59) vs. 12 (range, 5-55) days, respectively; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This study suggests that the routine use of diversion does not protect the patient from anastomotic complications or pelvic sepsis and its use requires a second admission for closure.
Authors: Seok In Seo; Chang Sik Yu; Gwon Sik Kim; Jong Lyul Lee; Yong Sik Yoon; Chan Wook Kim; Seok-Byung Lim; Jin Cheon Kim Journal: World J Surg Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Madhu Muralee; Nithish R Acharya; Wagh Mira Sudham; Arun Peter Mathew; Kurian Cherian; K Chandramohan; Paul Augustine; M Iqbal Ahamed Journal: Indian J Surg Oncol Date: 2017-07-11
Authors: William C Chapman; Melanie Subramanian; Senthil Jayarajan; Bilal Makhdoom; Matthew G Mutch; Steven Hunt; Matthew L Silviera; Sean C Glasgow; Margaret A Olsen; Paul E Wise Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2019-01-09 Impact factor: 6.113