BACKGROUND:Anastomotic leakage following anterior rectal resection is the most important and most commonly faced complication of laparoscopy and open surgery. To prevent this complication, the construction of a preventing stoma is usually adopted. It is not easy to decide whether to construct a protective stoma in patients with a medium risk of anastomotic leakage. In these patients, ghost ileostomy (GI), a pre-stage ileostomy that can be externalized and opened if needed, has proved useful. We conducted a prospective, randomized, controlled study to evaluate the advantages of GI in laparoscopic rectal resection. METHODS:All patients with surgical indications for laparoscopic rectal resection who were at medium risk for anastomotic leakage from January 2007 to January 2013 were included and were randomly divided in 2 groups. All of the patients were subjected to laparoscopic anterior rectal resection with the performance of GI (group A) or without the construction of any protective stoma (group B). The presence and severity of clinically evident postoperative anastomotic leakage and other postoperative complications and reinterventions were investigated. RESULTS: Of the 55 patients allocated to group A, 3 experienced anastomotic leakage compared with 4 in group B. The patients with GI experienced a lower severity of anastomotic leakage and shorter hospitalization compared with the patients in group B. None of the patients with GI and anastomotic leakage required laparotomy to treat the dehiscence. CONCLUSIONS: The use of GI in laparoscopic rectal resections in patients at medium risk for anastomotic leakage was useful because it allowed for the avoidance of stoma creation in all of the patients, thus reducing the number of stomas performed, improving the quality of life of the patients and preserving, in most cases, the benefits gained by laparoscopy.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Anastomotic leakage following anterior rectal resection is the most important and most commonly faced complication of laparoscopy and open surgery. To prevent this complication, the construction of a preventing stoma is usually adopted. It is not easy to decide whether to construct a protective stoma in patients with a medium risk of anastomotic leakage. In these patients, ghost ileostomy (GI), a pre-stage ileostomy that can be externalized and opened if needed, has proved useful. We conducted a prospective, randomized, controlled study to evaluate the advantages of GI in laparoscopic rectal resection. METHODS: All patients with surgical indications for laparoscopic rectal resection who were at medium risk for anastomotic leakage from January 2007 to January 2013 were included and were randomly divided in 2 groups. All of the patients were subjected to laparoscopic anterior rectal resection with the performance of GI (group A) or without the construction of any protective stoma (group B). The presence and severity of clinically evident postoperative anastomotic leakage and other postoperative complications and reinterventions were investigated. RESULTS: Of the 55 patients allocated to group A, 3 experienced anastomotic leakage compared with 4 in group B. The patients with GI experienced a lower severity of anastomotic leakage and shorter hospitalization compared with the patients in group B. None of the patients with GI and anastomotic leakage required laparotomy to treat the dehiscence. CONCLUSIONS: The use of GI in laparoscopic rectal resections in patients at medium risk for anastomotic leakage was useful because it allowed for the avoidance of stoma creation in all of the patients, thus reducing the number of stomas performed, improving the quality of life of the patients and preserving, in most cases, the benefits gained by laparoscopy.
Authors: A Shiomi; M Ito; N Saito; T Hirai; M Ohue; Y Kubo; Y Takii; T Sudo; M Kotake; Y Moriya Journal: Colorectal Dis Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 3.788
Authors: A Vignali; V W Fazio; I C Lavery; J W Milsom; J M Church; T L Hull; S A Strong; J R Oakley Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 1997-08 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Kenneth G Walker; Stephen W Bell; Matthew J F X Rickard; Daniel Mehanna; Owen F Dent; Pierre H Chapuis; E Leslie Bokey Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Koianka Trencheva; Kevin P Morrissey; Martin Wells; Carol A Mancuso; Sang W Lee; Toyooki Sonoda; Fabrizio Michelassi; Mary E Charlson; Jeffrey W Milsom Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Jun Seok Park; Gyu-Seog Choi; Seon Hahn Kim; Hyeong Rok Kim; Nam Kyu Kim; Kang Young Lee; Sung Bum Kang; Ji Yeon Kim; Kil Yeon Lee; Byung Chun Kim; Byung Noe Bae; Gyung Mo Son; Sun Il Lee; Hyun Kang Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: F Ferrara; D Parini; A Bondurri; M Veltri; M Barbierato; F Pata; F Cattaneo; A Tafuri; C Forni; G Roveron; G Rizzo Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2019-10-12 Impact factor: 3.781
Authors: Alberto Vega Hernández; Jakob Otten; Hildegard Christ; Christoph Ulrici; Elvin Piriyev; Sebastian Ludwig; Claudia Rudroff Journal: In Vivo Date: 2022 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.406
Authors: Peter C Ambe; Nadja Rebecca Kurz; Claudia Nitschke; Siad F Odeh; Gabriela Möslein; Hubert Zirngibl Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2018-03-16 Impact factor: 5.594
Authors: Magdalena Pisarska; Natalia Gajewska; Piotr Małczak; Michał Wysocki; Jan Witowski; Grzegorz Torbicz; Piotr Major; Magdalena Mizera; Marcin Dembiński; Marcin Migaczewski; Andrzej Budzyński; Michał Pędziwiatr Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2018-04-17
Authors: Felix J Hüttner; Pascal Probst; André Mihaljevic; Pietro Contin; Colette Dörr-Harim; Alexis Ulrich; Martin Schneider; Markus W Büchler; Markus K Diener; Phillip Knebel Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-10-15 Impact factor: 2.692