Victoria Archer1,2, Zacharie Cloutier3, Annie Berg4, Tyler McKechnie3, Wojtek Wiercioch5, Cagla Eskicioglu3. 1. Department of Surgery, Division of General Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. vicki.archer@medportal.ca. 2. Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. vicki.archer@medportal.ca. 3. Department of Surgery, Division of General Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. 4. Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. 5. Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Short-stay admissions, with lengths of stay less than 24 h, are used for various surgeries without increasing adverse events. However, it is unclear if short-stay admissions would be safe for loop ileostomy reversals. This review aimed to compare outcomes between short (≤24 hours) and long (>24 hours) admissions for adults undergoing loop ileostomy reversals. METHODS: Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for studies comparing short- to long-stay admissions in adults undergoing loop ileostomy reversals. Meta-analyses were conducted for mortality, reoperation, readmission, and non-reoperative complications. Quality of evidence was assessed with grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluations (GRADE) guidelines. RESULTS: Four observational studies enrolling 24,628 patients were included. Moderate certainty evidence suggests there is no difference in readmissions between short- and long-stay admissions (relative risk (RR) 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.28, p 0.86). Low certainty evidence demonstrates that short stays may reduce non-reoperative complications (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.62, p < 0.01). Very low certainty evidence demonstrates that there is no difference in reoperations between short and long stays (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.26 to 5.04, p 0.87). CONCLUSIONS: Moderate certainty evidence demonstrates that there is no difference in readmission rates between short- and long-stay admissions for loop ileostomy reversals. Less robust evidence suggests equivalence in reoperations and a decrease in non-reoperative complications. Future prospective trials are required to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of short-stay admissions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=307381 Prospero (CRD42022307381), January 30, 2022.
PURPOSE: Short-stay admissions, with lengths of stay less than 24 h, are used for various surgeries without increasing adverse events. However, it is unclear if short-stay admissions would be safe for loop ileostomy reversals. This review aimed to compare outcomes between short (≤24 hours) and long (>24 hours) admissions for adults undergoing loop ileostomy reversals. METHODS: Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for studies comparing short- to long-stay admissions in adults undergoing loop ileostomy reversals. Meta-analyses were conducted for mortality, reoperation, readmission, and non-reoperative complications. Quality of evidence was assessed with grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluations (GRADE) guidelines. RESULTS: Four observational studies enrolling 24,628 patients were included. Moderate certainty evidence suggests there is no difference in readmissions between short- and long-stay admissions (relative risk (RR) 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.28, p 0.86). Low certainty evidence demonstrates that short stays may reduce non-reoperative complications (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.62, p < 0.01). Very low certainty evidence demonstrates that there is no difference in reoperations between short and long stays (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.26 to 5.04, p 0.87). CONCLUSIONS: Moderate certainty evidence demonstrates that there is no difference in readmission rates between short- and long-stay admissions for loop ileostomy reversals. Less robust evidence suggests equivalence in reoperations and a decrease in non-reoperative complications. Future prospective trials are required to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of short-stay admissions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=307381 Prospero (CRD42022307381), January 30, 2022.
Authors: K Kraft; C Mariette; A Sauvanet; J-M Balon; R Douard; S Fabre; A Guidat; N Huten; H Johanet; A Laurent; F Muscari; P Pessaux; J-P Piermé; G Piessen; M Raucoules-Aimé; A Rault; C Vons Journal: J Visc Surg Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 2.043
Authors: O Peacock; A Bhalla; J A Simpson; S Gold; N G Hurst; W J Speake; G M Tierney; J N Lund Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2012-08-31 Impact factor: 3.781
Authors: A Bhalla; O Peacock; G M Tierney; S Tou; N G Hurst; W J Speake; J P Williams; J N Lund Journal: Colorectal Dis Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 3.788