Rudolf Mennigen1, Wiebke Sewald, Norbert Senninger, Emile Rijcken. 1. Department of General and Visceral Surgery, University Hospital Muenster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, Geb. W1, 48149, Muenster, Germany, rudolf.mennigen@ukmuenster.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Temporary loop ileostomy is a routine procedure to reduce the morbidity of restorative proctocolectomy. However, morbidity of ileostomy closure could reduce the benefit of this concept. The objective of this systematic review was to assess the risks of ileostomy closure after restorative proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis or familial adenomatous polyposis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Publications in English or German language reporting morbidity of ileostomy closure after restorative proctocolectomy were identified by Medline search. Two hundred thirty-two publications were screened, 143 were assessed in full-text, and finally 26 studies (reporting 2146 ileostomy closures) fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Weighted means for overall morbidity and mortality of ileostomy closure, rate of redo operations, anastomotic dehiscence, bowel obstruction, wound infection, and late complications were calculated. RESULTS: Overall morbidity of ileostomy closure was 16.5 %, there was no mortality. Redo operations for complications were necessary in 3.0 %. Anastomotic dehiscence occurred in 2.0 %. Postoperative bowel obstruction developed in 7.6 %, with 2.9 % of patients requiring laparotomy for this complication. Wound infection rate was 4.0 %. Hernia or bowel obstruction as late complications developed in 1.9 and 9.4 %, respectively. CONCLUSION: The considerable morbidity of ileostomy reversal reduces the overall benefit of temporary fecal diversion. However, ileostomy creation is still recommended, as it effectively reduces the risk of pouch-related septic complications.
BACKGROUND: Temporary loop ileostomy is a routine procedure to reduce the morbidity of restorative proctocolectomy. However, morbidity of ileostomy closure could reduce the benefit of this concept. The objective of this systematic review was to assess the risks of ileostomy closure after restorative proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis or familial adenomatous polyposis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Publications in English or German language reporting morbidity of ileostomy closure after restorative proctocolectomy were identified by Medline search. Two hundred thirty-two publications were screened, 143 were assessed in full-text, and finally 26 studies (reporting 2146 ileostomy closures) fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Weighted means for overall morbidity and mortality of ileostomy closure, rate of redo operations, anastomotic dehiscence, bowel obstruction, wound infection, and late complications were calculated. RESULTS: Overall morbidity of ileostomy closure was 16.5 %, there was no mortality. Redo operations for complications were necessary in 3.0 %. Anastomotic dehiscence occurred in 2.0 %. Postoperative bowel obstruction developed in 7.6 %, with 2.9 % of patients requiring laparotomy for this complication. Wound infection rate was 4.0 %. Hernia or bowel obstruction as late complications developed in 1.9 and 9.4 %, respectively. CONCLUSION: The considerable morbidity of ileostomy reversal reduces the overall benefit of temporary fecal diversion. However, ileostomy creation is still recommended, as it effectively reduces the risk of pouch-related septic complications.
Authors: Willem E Hueting; Erik Buskens; Ingeborg van der Tweel; Hein G Gooszen; Cees J H M van Laarhoven Journal: Dig Surg Date: 2005-04-14 Impact factor: 2.588
Authors: Victor Warren Fazio; Ravi P Kiran; Feza H Remzi; John Calvin Coffey; Helen Mary Heneghan; Hasan Tarik Kirat; Elena Manilich; Bo Shen; Sean T Martin Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Ravi P Kiran; Andre da Luz Moreira; Feza H Remzi; James M Church; Ian Lavery; Jeffery Hammel; Victor W Fazio Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: James P Taylor; Miloslawa Stem; Sophia Y Chen; David Yu; Sandy H Fang; Susan L Gearhart; Bashar Safar; Jonathan E Efron Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2018-10-22 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Anuradha R Bhama; Farwa Batool; Stacey D Collins; Jane Ferraro; Robert K Cleary Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2017-10-02 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Katie W Russell; Brigid P O'Holleran; Megan E Bowen; Mary C Mone; Courtney L Scaife Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2015-09-04 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: G D Musters; J J Atema; H L van Westreenen; C J Buskens; W A Bemelman; P J Tanis Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2016-01-05 Impact factor: 2.571