I Baloyiannis1, K Perivoliotis2, A Diamantis2, G Tzovaras2. 1. Department of Surgery, University Hospital of Larissa, Biopolis, Mezourlo, 41110, Larissa, Greece. balioan@hotmail.com. 2. Department of Surgery, University Hospital of Larissa, Biopolis, Mezourlo, 41110, Larissa, Greece.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anastomotic leak (AL) following colorectal surgery can be a life-threatening complication. The use of a diverting stoma has been proposed, to prevent or reduce morbidity and mortality associated with AL. Stomas, however, have their own distinct complications. Thus, virtual ileostomy (VI) has been proposed as an alternative to diverting stoma. The aim of the present study was to further evaluate the role of VI through systematic review of existing literature. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and the Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. The primary endpoint of our study was the estimation of the overall VI complication rate. Secondary endpoints included the identification of the VI-specific adverse outcomes, perioperative endpoints such as the length of hospital stay, transfusion and postoperative leak rates, description of the operative variations of VI reported VI operative variations and details regarding the primary operation and previous neoadjuvant therapy. RESULTS: In total, 11 studies and 554 patients were included in this systematic review. Overall, 158 laparoscopic and 191 open procedures were performed. The AL and VI conversion rates were 11.9% and 10.46%, respectively. The total complication rate was estimated to be 13.9%, while VI-specific adverse events were recorded in 2.1% of all cases. CONCLUSIONS: VI could be a safe and effective alternative to a diverting stoma. Although currently, VI is not widely used, it could have a widespread application in laparoscopic surgery. However, definitive trials are needed before firm recommendations on the use of VI can be made.
BACKGROUND:Anastomotic leak (AL) following colorectal surgery can be a life-threatening complication. The use of a diverting stoma has been proposed, to prevent or reduce morbidity and mortality associated with AL. Stomas, however, have their own distinct complications. Thus, virtual ileostomy (VI) has been proposed as an alternative to diverting stoma. The aim of the present study was to further evaluate the role of VI through systematic review of existing literature. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and the Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. The primary endpoint of our study was the estimation of the overall VI complication rate. Secondary endpoints included the identification of the VI-specific adverse outcomes, perioperative endpoints such as the length of hospital stay, transfusion and postoperative leak rates, description of the operative variations of VI reported VI operative variations and details regarding the primary operation and previous neoadjuvant therapy. RESULTS: In total, 11 studies and 554 patients were included in this systematic review. Overall, 158 laparoscopic and 191 open procedures were performed. The AL and VI conversion rates were 11.9% and 10.46%, respectively. The total complication rate was estimated to be 13.9%, while VI-specific adverse events were recorded in 2.1% of all cases. CONCLUSIONS: VI could be a safe and effective alternative to a diverting stoma. Although currently, VI is not widely used, it could have a widespread application in laparoscopic surgery. However, definitive trials are needed before firm recommendations on the use of VI can be made.
Authors: Piergaspare Palumbo; Sofia Usai; Andrea Pansa; Sara Lucchese; Roberto Caronna; Stefano Bona Journal: Anticancer Res Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 2.480
Authors: A Marrosu; F Serventi; F Pulighe; P Paliogiannis; F Attene; G Sotgiu; M Trignano Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2013-01-08 Impact factor: 3.781
Authors: Michał Pędziwiatr; Judene Mavrikis; Jan Witowski; Alexandros Adamos; Piotr Major; Michał Nowakowski; Andrzej Budzyński Journal: Med Oncol Date: 2018-05-09 Impact factor: 3.064
Authors: Antonio Caycedo-Marulanda; Sunil V Patel; Chris P Verschoor; Johanna P Uscategui; Sami A Chadi; Gabriela Moeslein; Manish Chand; Yasuko Maeda; John R T Monson; Steven D Wexner; Julio Mayol Journal: World J Surg Date: 2020-10-08 Impact factor: 3.352
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: 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