INTRODUCTION: Fecal diversion is considered an effective procedure to protect bowel anastomosis at high risk for leak. Some concerns exist regarding the risk for a significant morbidity associated to ileostomy creation itself and moreover to its closure. Surgical expertise and closure techniques are considered potential factors influencing morbidity. Aim of the study is to present a single-institution experience with ileostomy closures, in a teaching hospital, whereas ileostomy reversal is mainly performed by young residents. METHODS: A prospective database was investigated to extract data of patients who underwent loop ileostomy closure between January 2005 and December 2014. Ileostomy reversion was always realized in a handsewn fashion, performing either a direct closure (DC) or a resection plus end-to-end anastomosis (EEA). Postoperative morbidity was graded according to Clavien-Dindo classification. Outcomes after DC and EEA were compared by Fisher's exact test and Wilcoxon rank-sum test. RESULTS: Two hundred ninety-eight patients were included. Ileostomy reversal was performed by EEA in 236 patients (79.19 %) and by DC in 62 patients (20.81 %). Surgery was performed with a peristomal access in 296 cases (99.33 %). Incidence of anastomotic leak was 0.67 % (2/298). Overall reoperation rate was 0.34 % (1/298). Short-term overall morbidity rate was 20.47 %; but major complications (≥ grade III) occurred in only one patient (0.34 %). Mortality was nil. No significant differences in postoperative morbidity were found between the DC and EEA group. CONCLUSION: Loop ileostomy reversal is a safe procedure, associated to a low major morbidity and excellent results, even if performed with a handsewn technique by supervised trainee surgeons.
INTRODUCTION: Fecal diversion is considered an effective procedure to protect bowel anastomosis at high risk for leak. Some concerns exist regarding the risk for a significant morbidity associated to ileostomy creation itself and moreover to its closure. Surgical expertise and closure techniques are considered potential factors influencing morbidity. Aim of the study is to present a single-institution experience with ileostomy closures, in a teaching hospital, whereas ileostomy reversal is mainly performed by young residents. METHODS: A prospective database was investigated to extract data of patients who underwent loop ileostomy closure between January 2005 and December 2014. Ileostomy reversion was always realized in a handsewn fashion, performing either a direct closure (DC) or a resection plus end-to-end anastomosis (EEA). Postoperative morbidity was graded according to Clavien-Dindo classification. Outcomes after DC and EEA were compared by Fisher's exact test and Wilcoxon rank-sum test. RESULTS: Two hundred ninety-eight patients were included. Ileostomy reversal was performed by EEA in 236 patients (79.19 %) and by DC in 62 patients (20.81 %). Surgery was performed with a peristomal access in 296 cases (99.33 %). Incidence of anastomotic leak was 0.67 % (2/298). Overall reoperation rate was 0.34 % (1/298). Short-term overall morbidity rate was 20.47 %; but major complications (≥ grade III) occurred in only one patient (0.34 %). Mortality was nil. No significant differences in postoperative morbidity were found between the DC and EEA group. CONCLUSION: Loop ileostomy reversal is a safe procedure, associated to a low major morbidity and excellent results, even if performed with a handsewn technique by supervised trainee surgeons.
Authors: Vassiliki L Tsikitis; Stefan D Holubar; Eric J Dozois; Robert R Cima; John H Pemberton; David W Larson Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2010-01-28 Impact factor: 4.584
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: G F Giannakopoulos; A A F A Veenhof; D L van der Peet; C Sietses; W J H J Meijerink; M A Cuesta Journal: Colorectal Dis Date: 2008-10-01 Impact factor: 3.788
Authors: Norbert Hüser; Christoph W Michalski; Mert Erkan; Tibor Schuster; Robert Rosenberg; Jörg Kleeff; Helmut Friess Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Roberto Peltrini; Gaetano Luglio; Gianluca Cassese; Alfonso Amendola; Emanuele Caruso; Michele Sacco; Gianluca Pagano; Viviana Sollazzo; Antonio Tufano; Mariano Cesare Giglio; Luigi Bucci; Giovanni Domenico De Palma Journal: Open Med (Wars) Date: 2019-09-12