Literature DB >> 24085329

Impact of ileostomy-related complications on the multidisciplinary treatment of rectal cancer.

Uma R Phatak1, Lillian S Kao, Y Nancy You, Miguel A Rodriguez-Bigas, John M Skibber, Barry W Feig, Sa Nguyen, Scott B Cantor, George J Chang.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Radical resection is the primary treatment for rectal cancer. When anastomosis is possible, a temporary ileostomy is used to decrease morbidity from a poorly healed anastomosis. However, ileostomies are associated with complications, dehydration, and need for a second operation. We sought to evaluate the impact of ileostomy-related complications on the treatment of rectal cancer.
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of patients who underwent sphincter-preserving surgery between January 2005 and December 2010 at a tertiary cancer center. The primary outcome was the overall rate of ileostomy-related complications. Secondary outcomes included complications related to ileostomy status, ileostomy closure, anastomotic complications at primary resection, rate of stoma closure, and completion of adjuvant chemotherapy assessed by multivariate logistic regression.
RESULTS: Of 294 patients analyzed, 32% (n = 95) were women. Two hundred seventy-one (92%) received neoadjuvant chemoradiation. The median tumor distance from the anal verge was 7 cm (interquartile range 5-10 cm). Two hundred eighty-one (96%) underwent stoma closure at a median of 7 months (interquartile range 5.4-8.3 months). The most common complication related to readmission was dehydration (n = 32-11%). Readmission within 60 days of primary resection was associated with delay in initiating adjuvant chemotherapy (odds ratio 3.01, 95% confidence interval 1.42-6.38, p = 0.004).
CONCLUSIONS: Diverting ileostomies created during surgical treatment of rectal cancers are associated with morbidity; however, this is balanced against the risk of anastomosis-related morbidity at rectal resection. Given the potential benefit of fecal diversion, patient-oriented interventions to improve ostomy management, particularly during adjuvant chemotherapy, can be expected to yield marked benefits.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24085329      PMCID: PMC4026258          DOI: 10.1245/s10434-013-3287-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol        ISSN: 1068-9265            Impact factor:   5.344


  26 in total

1.  Safety of the temporary loop ileostomy.

Authors:  O. Hallböök; P. Matthiessen; T. Leinsköld; P.-O. Nyström; R. Sjödahl
Journal:  Colorectal Dis       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 3.788

2.  Renal impairment caused by temporary loop ileostomy.

Authors:  Nicole Beck-Kaltenbach; Katja Voigt; Bernhard Rumstadt
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2010-12-24       Impact factor: 2.571

Review 3.  The morbidity surrounding reversal of defunctioning ileostomies: a systematic review of 48 studies including 6,107 cases.

Authors:  Andre Chow; Henry S Tilney; Paraskevas Paraskeva; Santhini Jeyarajah; Emmanouil Zacharakis; Sanjay Purkayastha
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2009-02-17       Impact factor: 2.571

4.  Temporary decompression after colorectal surgery: randomized comparison of loop ileostomy and loop colostomy.

Authors:  A W Gooszen; R H Geelkerken; J Hermans; M B Lagaay; H G Gooszen
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  1998-01       Impact factor: 6.939

5.  Risk factors for anastomotic failure after total mesorectal excision of rectal cancer.

Authors:  K C M J Peeters; R A E M Tollenaar; C A M Marijnen; E Klein Kranenbarg; W H Steup; T Wiggers; H J Rutten; C J H van de Velde
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 6.939

6.  Dehydration is the most common indication for readmission after diverting ileostomy creation.

Authors:  Evangelos Messaris; Rishabh Sehgal; Susan Deiling; Walter A Koltun; David Stewart; Kevin McKenna; Lisa S Poritz
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 4.585

7.  Loop ileostomy versus loop colostomy for defunctioning low anastomoses during rectal cancer surgery.

Authors:  E Rullier; N Le Toux; C Laurent; J L Garrelon; M Parneix; J Saric
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 3.352

8.  De-functioning stomas: a prospective controlled trial comparing loop ileostomy with loop transverse colostomy.

Authors:  N S Williams; D G Nasmyth; D Jones; A H Smith
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  1986-07       Impact factor: 6.939

9.  Causes and management of a high-output stoma.

Authors:  M L Baker; R N Williams; J M D Nightingale
Journal:  Colorectal Dis       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 3.788

10.  Defunctioning loop ileostomy: a prospective audit.

Authors:  G C O'Toole; J M Hyland; D C Grant; M K Barry
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 6.113

View more
  39 in total

1.  Ileostomy versus fecal diversion device to protect anastomosis after rectal surgery: a randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Sohyun Kim; Sang Hun Jung; Jae Hwang Kim
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2019-02-11       Impact factor: 2.571

2.  A meta-analysis of the use of a transanal drainage tube to prevent anastomotic leakage after anterior resection by double-stapling technique for rectal cancer.

Authors:  Kohei Shigeta; Koji Okabayashi; Hideo Baba; Hirotoshi Hasegawa; Masashi Tsuruta; Kazuo Yamafuji; Kiyoshi Kubochi; Yuko Kitagawa
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2015-06-20       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  The influence of specific technical maneuvers utilized in the creation of diverting loop-ileostomies on stoma-related morbidity.

Authors:  Masaaki Miyo; Ichiro Takemasa; Masataka Ikeda; Masaki Tujie; Junichi Hasegawa; Masayuki Ohue; Takeshi Kato; Tsunekazu Mizushima; Yuichiro Doki; Masaki Mori
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2017-03-09       Impact factor: 2.549

4.  Readmissions With Dehydration After Ileostomy Creation: Rethinking Risk Factors.

Authors:  Carla F Justiniano; Larissa K Temple; Alex A Swanger; Zhaomin Xu; Jenny R Speranza; Christina Cellini; Rabih M Salloum; Fergal J Fleming
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 4.585

5.  Diverting ileostomy in laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: high price of protection.

Authors:  Peter Ihnát; Petra Guňková; Matúš Peteja; Petr Vávra; Anton Pelikán; Pavel Zonča
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2016-02-22       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Patient autonomy-centered self-care checklist reduces hospital readmissions after ileostomy creation.

Authors:  Karin M Hardiman; Christina D Reames; Marshall C McLeod; Scott E Regenbogen
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2016-06-16       Impact factor: 3.982

7.  Greatest Challenges of Rectal Cancer Survivors: Results of a Population-Based Survey.

Authors:  Carmit K McMullen; Joanna E Bulkley; Andrea Altschuler; Christopher S Wendel; Marcia Grant; Mark C Hornbrook; Virginia Sun; Robert S Krouse
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2016-11       Impact factor: 4.585

8.  Predisposing factors and clinical impact of high-output syndrome after sphincter-preserving surgery with covering ileostomy for rectal cancer: a retrospective single-center cohort study.

Authors:  Ryota Nakanishi; Tsuyoshi Konishi; Erika Nakaya; Yoko Zaitsu; Toshiki Mukai; Tomohiro Yamaguchi; Toshiya Nagasaki; Takashi Akiyoshi; Satoshi Nagayama; Yosuke Fukunaga
Journal:  Int J Clin Oncol       Date:  2020-09-09       Impact factor: 3.402

9.  First, Do No Harm: Rethinking Routine Diversion in Sphincter-Preserving Rectal Cancer Resection.

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

10.  Postoperative readmissions following ileostomy formation among patients with a gynecologic malignancy.

Authors:  Michelle A Glasgow; Kristin Shields; Rachel Isaksson Vogel; Deanna Teoh; Peter A Argenta
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2014-06-14       Impact factor: 5.482

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.