Abstract
Background
The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of an early stoma closure protocol facilitated by Seprafilm wrapping of defunctioning ileostomies compared with a similar group of patients with conventional stoma formation and closure.
Methods
Consecutive patients undergoing defunctioning ileostomy following rectal resection with pelvic anastomosis were planned for early closure and had their ileostomy wrapped in Seprafilm at the time of formation. Stoma closure was performed at 4–6 weeks if water-soluble contrast enema showed no evidence of leak, and the patient’s physiological parameters had been optimized. Patients were matched for age, gender, American Society of Anaesthesiologists score, neoadjuvant treatment and procedure, with patients undergoing conventional ileostomy formation and closure. Outcomes were compared using the 2-tailed Mann–Whitney U test and Fisher’s exact test.
Results
Following resection, twenty-two patients (69 %) were suitable for early closure and underwent stoma closure at a median of 37 days (range 25–90 days). Seprafilm-wrapped ileostomies were closed earlier than the conventional ileostomies (median 55 days (range 25–250 days) versus 213 days (range 86–352 days), p < 0.001). There was no difference between the groups as regards length of hospital stay or complications following ileostomy closure. Eighteen Seprafilm stoma patients and 22 conventional stoma patients received adjuvant chemotherapy. Median time to starting chemotherapy from resection was 10 versus 8.5 weeks, respectively (p = 0.36).
Conclusions
An early stoma closure protocol facilitated by Seprafilm wrapping of the ileostomy is practical, does not increase morbidity and significantly reduces the time with a stoma for the patient. An early stoma closure protocol did not significantly delay in the commencement of chemotherapy.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Matthiessen P, Hallböök O, Rutegård J, Simert G, Sjödahl R (2007) Defunctioning stoma reduces symptomatic anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection of the rectum for cancer: a randomized multicenter trial. Ann Surg 246:207–214
Tan WS, Tang CL, Shi L, Eu KW (2009) Meta-analysis of defunctioning stomas in low anterior resection for rectal cancer. Br J Surg 96:462–472
Shellito PC (1998) Complications of abdominal stoma surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 41:1562–1572
Kaidar-Person O, Person B, Wexner SD (2005) Complications of construction and closure of temporary loop ileostomy. J Am Coll Surg 201:759–773
Giannakopoulos GF, Veenhof AA, van der Peet DL, Sietses C, Meijerink WJ, Cuesta MA (2009) Morbidity and complications of protective loop ileostomy. Colorectal Dis 11:609–612
Duchesne JC, Wang YZ, Weintraub SL, Boyle M, Hunt JP (2002) Stoma complications: a multivariate analysis. Am Surg 68:961–966 (discussion 6)
Lordan JT, Heywood R, Shirol S, Edwards DP (2007) Following anterior resection for rectal cancer, defunctioning ileostomy closure may be significantly delayed by adjuvant chemotherapy: a retrospective study. Colorectal Dis 9:420–422
Thalheimer A, Bueter M, Kortuem M, Thiede A, Meyyer D (2006) Morbidity of temporary loop ileostomy in patients with colorectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 49:1011–1017
Gooszen AW, Geelkerken RH, Hermans J, Lagaay MB, Gooszen HG (2000) Quality of life with a temporary stoma: ileostomy vs. colostomy. Dis Colon Rectum 43:650–655
Camilleri-Brennan J, Steele RJ (2002) Prospective analysis of quality of life after reversal of a defunctioning loop ileostomy. Colorectal Dis 4:167–171
Shorthouse AJ, Bartram CI, Eyers AA, Thomson JP (1982) The water soluble contrast enema after rectal anastomosis. Br J Surg 69:714–717
Everett WG (1975) A comparison of one layer and two layer techniques for colorectal anastomosis. Br J Surg 62:135–140
Akyol AM, McGregor JR, Galloway DJ, George WD (1992) Early postoperative contrast radiology in the assessment of colorectal anastomotic integrity. Int J Colorectal Dis 7:141–143
Kusunoki M, Ikeuchi H, Yanagi H et al (2005) Bioresorbable hyaluronate-carboxymethylcellulose membrane (Seprafilm) in surgery for rectal carcinoma: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Surg Today 35:940–945
Salum M, Wexner SD, Nogueras JJ et al (2006) Does sodium hyaluronate- and carboxymethylcellulose-based bioresorbable membrane (Seprafilm) decrease operative time for loop ileostomy closure? Tech Coloproctol 10:187–190 (discussion 90–91)
Tang CL, Seow-Choen F, Fook-Chong S, Eu KW (2003) Bioresorbable adhesion barrier facilitates early closure of the defunctioning ileostomy after rectal excision: a prospective, randomized trial. Dis Colon Rectum 46:1200–1207
Gooszen AW, Geelkerken RH, Hermans J, Lagaay MB, Gooszen HG (1998) Temporary decompression after colorectal surgery: randomized comparison of loop ileostomy and loop colostomy. Br J Surg 85:76–79
Chand M, Nash GF, Talbot RW (2008) Timely closure of loop ileostomy following anterior resection for rectal cancer. Eur J Cancer Care 17:611–615
Al-Booz H, Boiangiu I, Appleby H et al (2006) Sigmoid colon is an unexpected organ at risk in brachytherapy for cervix cancer. J Egypt Natl Canc Inst 18:156–160
Savoye-Collet C, Koning E, Dacher JN (2006) Sonographic imaging of obstetric anal sphincter defect. Feuillets de Radiologie 46:201–210
Chau I, Cunningham D (2006) Adjuvant therapy in colon cancer—what, when and how? Ann Oncol 17:1347–1359
Des Guetz G, Nicolas P, Perret GY, Morere JF, Uzzan B (2010) Does delaying adjuvant chemotherapy after curative surgery for colorectal cancer impair survival? A meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer 46:1049–1055
Hershman D, Hall MJ, Wang X et al (2006) Timing of adjuvant chemotherapy initiation after surgery for stage III colon cancer. Cancer 107:2581–2588
Kairaluoma M, Rissanen H, Kultti V, Mecklin JP, Kellokumpu I (2002) Outcome of temporary stomas. A prospective study of temporary intestinal stomas constructed between 1989 and 1996. Dig Surg 19:45–51
Winslet MC, Barsoum G, Pringle W, Fox K, Keighley MR (1991) Loop ileostomy after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis—is it necessary? Dis Colon Rectum 34:267–270
O’Toole GC, Hyland JM, Grant DC, Barry MK (1999) Defunctioning loop ileostomy: a prospective audit. J Am Coll Surg 188:6–9
Krand O, Yalti T, Berber I, Tellioglu G (2008) Early vs. delayed closure of temporary covering ileostomy: a prospective study. Hepatogastroenterology 55:142–145
O’Leary DP, Fide CJ, Foy C, Lucarotti ME (2001) Quality of life after low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision and temporary loop ileostomy for rectal carcinoma. Br J Surg 88:1216–1220
Bakx R, Busch OR, van Geldere D, Bemelman WA, Slors JF, van Lanschot JJ (2003) Feasibility of early closure of loop ileostomies: a pilot study. Dis Colon Rectum 46:1680–1684
Menegaux F, Jordi-Galais P, Turrin N, Chigot JP (2002) Closure of small bowel stomas on postoperative day 10. Eur J Surg 168:713–715
Alves A, Panis Y, Lelong B, Dousset B, Benoist S, Vicaut E (2008) Randomized clinical trial of early versus delayed temporary stoma closure after proctectomy. Br J Surg 95:693–698
Kalady MF, Mantyh CR, Petrofski J, Ludwig KA (2008) Routine contrast imaging of low pelvic anastomosis prior to closure of defunctioning ileostomy: is it necessary? J Gastrointest Surg 12:1227–1231
Karsten BJ, King JB, Kumar RR (2009) Role of water-soluble enema before takedown of diverting ileostomy for low pelvic anastomosis. Am Surg 75:941–944
da Silva GM, Wexner SD, Gurland B et al (2004) Is routine pouchogram prior to ileostomy closure in colonic J-pouch really necessary? Colorectal Dis 6:117–120
David M, Sarani B, Moid F, Tabbara S, Orkin BA (2005) Paradoxical inflammatory reaction to Seprafilm: case report and review of the literature. South Med J 98:1039–1041
Klingler PJ, Floch NR, Seelig MH, Branton SA, Wolfe ST, Metzger PP (1999) Seprafilm-induced peritoneal inflammation: a previously unknown complication. Report of a case. Dis Colon Rectum 42:1639–1643
Conflict of interest
None.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Memon, S., Heriot, A.G., Atkin, C.E. et al. Facilitated early ileostomy closure after rectal cancer surgery: a case-matched study. Tech Coloproctol 16, 285–290 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-012-0843-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-012-0843-4