Tyler McKechnie1,2, Yung Lee1,2, Jeremy E Springer2, Aristithes G Doumouras2,3, Dennis Hong2,3, Cagla Eskicioglu4,5. 1. Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, L8N 4A6, Canada. 2. Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, 50 Charlton Avenue East, Hamilton, Ontario, L8N 4A6, Canada. 3. Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, St. Joseph Healthcare, 50 Charlton Avenue East, Hamilton, Ontario, L8N 4A6, Canada. 4. Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, 50 Charlton Avenue East, Hamilton, Ontario, L8N 4A6, Canada. eskicio@mcmaster.ca. 5. Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, St. Joseph Healthcare, 50 Charlton Avenue East, Hamilton, Ontario, L8N 4A6, Canada. eskicio@mcmaster.ca.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Surgical consultation is recommended for all patients with fulminant Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI). If surgery is required, total abdominal colectomy (TAC) is most commonly performed. However, diverting loop ileostomy and colonic lavage have been recently developed as a potential colon-sparing approach to fulminant CDI. The aim of this review is to compare TAC and diverting loop ileostomy with colonic lavage for fulminant CDI. METHODS: Search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and PubMed was performed. Articles were eligible for inclusion if they compared TAC and diverting loop ileostomy with colonic lavage. The primary outcome was postoperative mortality, and the secondary outcome was postoperative complications. Quality of included studies was assessed using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: From 64 relevant citations, 5 studies (4 retrospective cohorts, 1 case series) with 3683 patients were included. Compared to TAC, diverting loop ileostomy with colonic lavage did not significantly reduce overall mortality (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.99, P = 0.77), rate of reoperation (RR 1.02, 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.63, P = 0.94), or overall postoperative complications (RR 0.51, 95% CI, 0.22 to 1.17, P = 0.11). Rates of colonic preservation with the use of diverting loop ileostomy with colonic lavage ranged from 76% to 100%. CONCLUSION: There does not appear to be a survival advantage with the use of diverting loop ileostomy with colonic lavage compared to TAC for fulminant CDI. However, diverting loop ileostomy with colonic lavage results in increased rates of colonic preservation, restoration of intestinal continuity, and laparoscopic surgery. This review is limited by the small number of included studies.
PURPOSE: Surgical consultation is recommended for all patients with fulminant Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI). If surgery is required, total abdominal colectomy (TAC) is most commonly performed. However, diverting loop ileostomy and colonic lavage have been recently developed as a potential colon-sparing approach to fulminant CDI. The aim of this review is to compare TAC and diverting loop ileostomy with colonic lavage for fulminant CDI. METHODS: Search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and PubMed was performed. Articles were eligible for inclusion if they compared TAC and diverting loop ileostomy with colonic lavage. The primary outcome was postoperative mortality, and the secondary outcome was postoperative complications. Quality of included studies was assessed using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: From 64 relevant citations, 5 studies (4 retrospective cohorts, 1 case series) with 3683 patients were included. Compared to TAC, diverting loop ileostomy with colonic lavage did not significantly reduce overall mortality (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.99, P = 0.77), rate of reoperation (RR 1.02, 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.63, P = 0.94), or overall postoperative complications (RR 0.51, 95% CI, 0.22 to 1.17, P = 0.11). Rates of colonic preservation with the use of diverting loop ileostomy with colonic lavage ranged from 76% to 100%. CONCLUSION: There does not appear to be a survival advantage with the use of diverting loop ileostomy with colonic lavage compared to TAC for fulminant CDI. However, diverting loop ileostomy with colonic lavage results in increased rates of colonic preservation, restoration of intestinal continuity, and laparoscopic surgery. This review is limited by the small number of included studies.
Authors: Gwendolyn M van der Wilden; Yuchiao Chang; Catrina Cropano; Melanie Subramanian; Inger B Schipper; D Dante Yeh; David R King; Marc A de Moya; Peter J Fagenholz; George C Velmahos Journal: J Trauma Acute Care Surg Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 3.313
Authors: Scott R Steele; James McCormick; Genevieve B Melton; Ian Paquette; David E Rivadeneira; David Stewart; W Donald Buie; Janice Rafferty Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: Bradley R Hall; Jennifer A Leinicke; Priscila R Armijo; Lynette M Smith; Sean J Langenfeld; Dmitry Oleynikov Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2018-09-22 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Shanika de Silva; Christopher Ma; Marie-Claude Proulx; Marcelo Crespin; Belle S Kaplan; James Hubbard; Martin Prusinkiewicz; Andrew Fong; Remo Panaccione; Subrata Ghosh; Paul L Beck; Anthony Maclean; Donald Buie; Gilaad G Kaplan Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2011-07-30 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Stuart Johnson; Thomas J Louie; Dale N Gerding; Oliver A Cornely; Scott Chasan-Taber; David Fitts; Steven P Gelone; Colin Broom; David M Davidson Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2014-05-05 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Haig Dudukgian; Ester Sie; Claudia Gonzalez-Ruiz; David A Etzioni; Andreas M Kaiser Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Joshua Tseng; Brandi Loper; Monica Jain; Azaria V Lewis; Daniel R Margulies; Rodrigo F Alban Journal: Trauma Surg Acute Care Open Date: 2017-11-02
Authors: E Bouza; J M Aguado; L Alcalá; B Almirante; P Alonso-Fernández; M Borges; J Cobo; J Guardiola; J P Horcajada; E Maseda; J Mensa; N Merchante; P Muñoz; J L Pérez Sáenz; M Pujol; E Reigadas; M Salavert; J Barberán Journal: Rev Esp Quimioter Date: 2020-02-20 Impact factor: 1.553