Sheng-Wen Wu1, Cong-Chao Ma1, Yu Yang1. 1. Sheng-Wen Wu, Cong-Chao Ma, Yu Yang, Department of General surgery, The Affiliated Jianhu Hospital of Nantong University, Jianhu People's Hospital, Jianhu 224700, Jiangsu Province, China.
Abstract
AIM: To provide a comprehensive evaluation of the role of a protective stoma in low anterior resection (LAR) for rectal cancer. METHODS: The PubMed, EMBASE, and MEDLINE databases were searched for studies and relevant literature published between 2007 and 2014 regarding the construction of a protective stoma during LAR. A pooled risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was used to assess the outcomes of the studies, including the rate of postoperative anastomotic leakage and reoperations related to leakage. Funnel plots and Egger's tests were used to evaluate the publication biases of the studies. P values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: A total of 11 studies were included in the meta-analysis. In total, 5612 patients were examined, 2868 of whom had a protective stoma and 2744 of whom did not. The sample size of the studies varied from 34 to 1912 patients. All studies reported the number of patients who developed an anastomotic leakage and required a reoperation related to leakage. A random effects model was used to calculate the pooled RR with the corresponding 95%CI because obvious heterogeneity was observed among the 11 studies (I (2) = 77%). The results indicated that the creation of a protective stoma during LAR significantly reduces the rate of anastomotic leakage and the number of reoperations related to leakage, with pooled RRs of 0.38 (95%CI: 0.30-0.48, P < 0.00001) and 0.37 (95%CI: 0.29-0.48, P < 0.00001), respectively. The shape of the funnel plot did not reveal any evidence of obvious asymmetry. CONCLUSION: The presence of a protective stoma effectively decreased the incidences of anastomotic leakage and reoperation and is recommended in patients undergoing low rectal anterior resections for rectal cancer.
AIM: To provide a comprehensive evaluation of the role of a protective stoma in low anterior resection (LAR) for rectal cancer. METHODS: The PubMed, EMBASE, and MEDLINE databases were searched for studies and relevant literature published between 2007 and 2014 regarding the construction of a protective stoma during LAR. A pooled risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was used to assess the outcomes of the studies, including the rate of postoperative anastomotic leakage and reoperations related to leakage. Funnel plots and Egger's tests were used to evaluate the publication biases of the studies. P values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: A total of 11 studies were included in the meta-analysis. In total, 5612 patients were examined, 2868 of whom had a protective stoma and 2744 of whom did not. The sample size of the studies varied from 34 to 1912 patients. All studies reported the number of patients who developed an anastomotic leakage and required a reoperation related to leakage. A random effects model was used to calculate the pooled RR with the corresponding 95%CI because obvious heterogeneity was observed among the 11 studies (I (2) = 77%). The results indicated that the creation of a protective stoma during LAR significantly reduces the rate of anastomotic leakage and the number of reoperations related to leakage, with pooled RRs of 0.38 (95%CI: 0.30-0.48, P < 0.00001) and 0.37 (95%CI: 0.29-0.48, P < 0.00001), respectively. The shape of the funnel plot did not reveal any evidence of obvious asymmetry. CONCLUSION: The presence of a protective stoma effectively decreased the incidences of anastomotic leakage and reoperation and is recommended in patients undergoing low rectal anterior resections for rectal cancer.
Entities:
Keywords:
Complication; Low anterior resection; Meta-analysis; Protective stoma; Rectal cancer
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: Sang Hun Jung; Chang Sik Yu; Pyong Wha Choi; Dae Dong Kim; In Ja Park; Hee Cheol Kim; Jin Cheon Kim Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2008-04-12 Impact factor: 4.585
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
Authors: B Lefebure; J J Tuech; V Bridoux; B Costaglioli; M Scotte; P Teniere; F Michot Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2007-09-02 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: J F Huisman; H L van Westreenen; E J van der Wouden; H F A Vasen; E J R de Graaf; P G Doornebosch; T J Tang; I Schot; R M Brohet; W H de Vos Tot Nederveen Cappel; M Vermaas Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2019-07-23 Impact factor: 3.781
Authors: Sarath Sujatha-Bhaskar; Matthew Whealon; Colette S Inaba; Christina Y Koh; Mehraneh D Jafari; Steven Mills; Alessio Pigazzi; Michael J Stamos; Joseph C Carmichael Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2018-10-25 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Jukka M Rintala; Pirita R Tahvonen; Saija T Vuolio; Ilpo T Typpö; Kai A Suokanerva; Heikki I Huhta Journal: Gastrointest Tumors Date: 2020-11-18
Authors: Rachel M Lee; Adriana C Gamboa; Michael K Turgeon; Sanjana Prasad; Gifty Kwakye; Maryam Mohammed; Jennifer Holder-Murray; Sherif Abdel-Misih; Charles Kimbrough; Mosope Soda; Alexander T Hawkins; William C Chapman; Matthew Silviera; Shishir K Maithel; Glen Balch Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2020-08-31 Impact factor: 3.267