Literature DB >> 23632318

An increasing use of defunctioning stomas after low anterior resection for rectal cancer. Is this the way to go?

H S Snijders1, C B M van den Broek, M W J M Wouters, E Meershoek-Klein Kranenbarg, T Wiggers, H Rutten, C J H van de Velde, R A E M Tollenaar, J W T Dekker.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The last decade there has been an increased awareness of the problem of anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection for rectal cancer, which may have led to more defunctioning stomas. In this study, current use of defunctioning stomas was assessed and compared to the use of defunctioning stomas at the time of the TME-trial together with associated outcomes.
METHODS: Eligible patients with rectal cancer undergoing low anterior resection were selected from the Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit (DSCA, n = 988). Similar patients were selected from the TME-trial (n = 891). The percentages of patients with a defunctioning stoma, anastomotic leakage and postoperative mortality rates were studied. Multivariable models were used to study possible confounding on the outcomes.
RESULTS: At the time of the TME-trial, 57% of patients received a defunctioning stoma. At the time of the DSCA, 70% of all patients received a defunctioning stoma (p < 0.001). Anastomotic leakage rates were similar (11.4% and 12.1%; p = 0.640). The postoperative mortality rate differed (3.9% in the TME-trial vs. 1.1% in the DSCA; p < 0.001), but was not associated with a more frequent use of a stoma (OR 1.80, 95% CI 0.91-3.58).
CONCLUSION: In current surgical practice, 70% of patients undergoing LAR for rectal cancer receives a defunctioning stomas. This percentage seems increased when compared to data from the TME-trial. Clinically relevant anastomotic leakage rates remained similar. Therefore, current routine use of defunctioning stomas should be questioned.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23632318     DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2013.03.025

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Surg Oncol        ISSN: 0748-7983            Impact factor:   4.424


  16 in total

1.  What is the risk of clinical anastomotic leak in the diverted colorectal anastomosis?

Authors:  Jennifer Leahy; David Schoetz; Peter Marcello; Thomas Read; Jason Hall; Patricia Roberts; Rocco Ricciardi
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2014-07-15       Impact factor: 3.452

2.  Laparoscopic delayed coloanal anastomosis without diverting ileostomy for low rectal cancer surgery: 85 consecutive patients from a single institution.

Authors:  P-Y Sage; B Trilling; P-A Waroquet; D Voirin; E Girard; J-L Faucheron
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2018-07-19       Impact factor: 3.781

3.  Open sphincter-preserving surgery of extraperitoneal rectal cancer without primary stoma and Fast Track Protocol.

Authors:  G Pappalardo; S Coiro; F De Lucia; A Giannella; F Ruffolo; F M Frattaroli
Journal:  G Chir       Date:  2016 Nov-Dec

4.  Comparison of postoperative complication rates between a novel endoluminal balloon-assisted drainage and diverting stoma after low rectal cancer.

Authors:  W Liang; H Jie; Z Zeng; S Luo; Z Liu; L Huang; L Kang
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2022-01-14       Impact factor: 3.405

5.  High 1-year complication rate after anterior resection for rectal cancer.

Authors:  H S Snijders; I S Bakker; J W T Dekker; T A Vermeer; E C J Consten; C Hoff; J M Klaase; K Havenga; R A E M Tollenaar; T Wiggers
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2013-11-19       Impact factor: 3.452

6.  Optimal Treatment Strategy in Rectal Cancer Surgery: Should We Be Cowboys or Chickens?

Authors:  Heleen S Snijders; Nicoline J van Leersum; Daan Henneman; Alexander C de Vries; Rob A E M Tollenaar; Anne M Stiggelbout; Michel W J M Wouters; Jan Willem T Dekker
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2015-02-18       Impact factor: 5.344

7.  Intestinal stoma in patients with colorectal cancer from the perspective of 20-year period of clinical observation.

Authors:  Zbigniew Banaszkiewicz; Łukasz P Woda; Tomasz Zwoliński; Krzysztof Tojek; Paweł Jarmocik; Arkadiusz Jawień
Journal:  Prz Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-02-13

8.  Loop-ileostomy reversal-patient-related characteristics influencing time to closure.

Authors:  Carl Pontus Gustafsson; Ulf Gunnarsson; Ursula Dahlstrand; Ulrik Lindforss
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2018-03-05       Impact factor: 2.571

9.  Defunctioning Ileostomy Reversal Rates and Reasons for Delayed Reversal: Does Delay Impact on Complications of Ileostomy Reversal? A Study of 170 Defunctioning Ileostomies.

Authors:  Peter Waterland; Kolitha Goonetilleke; David N Naumann; Mathew Sutcliff; Faris Soliman
Journal:  J Clin Med Res       Date:  2015-07-24

10.  Clinical practice guidelines for the surgical treatment of rectal cancer: a consensus statement of the Hellenic Society of Medical Oncologists (HeSMO).

Authors:  Evaghelos Xynos; Paris Tekkis; Nikolaos Gouvas; Louiza Vini; Evangelia Chrysou; Maria Tzardi; Vassilis Vassiliou; Ioannis Boukovinas; Christos Agalianos; Nikolaos Androulakis; Athanasios Athanasiadis; Christos Christodoulou; Christos Dervenis; Christos Emmanouilidis; Panagiotis Georgiou; Ourania Katopodi; Panteleimon Kountourakis; Thomas Makatsoris; Pavlos Papakostas; Demetris Papamichael; George Pechlivanides; Georgios Pentheroudakis; Ioannis Pilpilidis; Joseph Sgouros; Charina Triantopoulou; Spyridon Xynogalos; Niki Karachaliou; Nikolaos Ziras; Odysseas Zoras; John Souglakos
Journal:  Ann Gastroenterol       Date:  2016 Apr-Jun
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.