Stringent fluid management might help to prevent postoperative ileus after loop ileostomy closure

  • Fabian Grass
  • Basile Pache
  • Fabio Butti
  • Josep Solà
  • Dieter Hahnloser
  • Nicolas DemartinesEmail author
  • Martin Hübner



The present study aimed to analyze the impact of perioperative fluid management on postoperative ileus (POI) after loop ileostomy closure.


Consecutive loop ileostomy closures over a 6-year period (May 2011–May 2017) were included. Main outcomes were POI, defined as time to first stool beyond POD 3, and postoperative complications of any grade. Critical fluid management–related thresholds including postoperative weight gain were identified through receiver operator characteristics (ROC) analysis and tested in a multivariable analysis.


Of 238 included patients, 33 (14%) presented with POI; overall complications occurred in 91 patients (38%). 1.7 L IV fluids at postoperative day (POD) 0 was determined a critical threshold for POI (area under ROC curve (AUROC), 0.64), yielding a negative predictive value (NPV) of 93%. Further, a critical cutoff for a postoperative weight gain of 1.2 kg at POD 2 was identified (AUROC, 0.65; NPV, 95%). Multivariable analysis confirmed POD 0 fluids of > 1.7 L (OR, 4.7; 95% CI, 1.4–15.3; p = 0.01) and POD 2 weight gain of > 1.2 kg (OR, 3.1; 95% CI, 1–9.4; p = 0.046) as independent predictors for POI.


Perioperative fluid administration of > 1.7 L and POD 2 weight gain of > 1.2 kg represent critical thresholds for POI after loop ileostomy closure.


Loop ileostomy Fluid management Weight gain Postoperative ileus Complications 



enhanced recovery after surgery


Authors’ contribution

FG, BP, JS, and MH: study conception and design; FG, BP, FB, and JS: acquisition of data; FG, BP, FB, DH, ND, and MH: analysis and interpretation of data; FG, BP, FB, DH, ND, and MH: drafting of manuscript; FG, BP, FB, JS, DH, ND, and MH: critical revision of manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

This study was conducted as an institutional quality improvement project. Therefore, no informed consent was needed, after approval of the Institutional Review Board (Commission cantonale d’éthique de la recherche sur l’être humain CER-VD # 2017-01971).

Supplementary material

423_2018_1744_Fig3_ESM.png (346 kb)

Online appendix ROC curves. a. IV fluid administration at POD 0. b. Weight gain at POD 2. ROC curves for a) total IV fluid administration at POD 0 and for b) weight gain at POD 2 and POI (n=33) for loop ileostomy closure. AUC – area under the curve, Thd: threshold (mL and kg, respectively) (PNG 345 kb)

423_2018_1744_MOESM1_ESM.tiff (32.1 mb)
High Resolution Image (TIFF 32874 kb)


  1. 1.
    Giannakopoulos GF, Veenhof AA, van der Peet DL, Sietses C, Meijerink WJ, Cuesta MA (2009) Morbidity and complications of protective loop ileostomy. Color Dis 11(6):609–612. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chow A, Tilney HS, Paraskeva P, Jeyarajah S, Zacharakis E, Purkayastha S (2009) The morbidity surrounding reversal of defunctioning ileostomies: a systematic review of 48 studies including 6,107 cases. Int J Color Dis 24(6):711–723. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wong KS, Remzi FH, Gorgun E, Arrigain S, Church JM, Preen M, Fazio VW (2005) Loop ileostomy closure after restorative proctocolectomy: outcome in 1,504 patients. Dis Colon Rectum 48(2):243–250. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bhalla A, Peacock O, Tierney GM, Tou S, Hurst NG, Speake WJ, Williams JP, Lund JN (2015) Day-case closure of ileostomy: feasible, safe and efficient. Color Dis 17(9):820–823. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Berger NG, Chou R, Toy ES, Ludwig KA, Ridolfi TJ, Peterson CY (2017) Loop ileostomy closure as an overnight procedure: institutional comparison with the National Surgical Quality Improvement Project data set. Dis Colon Rectum 60(8):852–859. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sabbagh C, Cosse C, Rebibo L, Hariz H, Dhahri A, Regimbeau JM (2018) Identifying patients eligible for a short hospital stay after stoma closure. J Investig Surg 31(3):168–172. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Slieker J, Hubner M, Addor V, Duvoisin C, Demartines N, Hahnloser D (2018) Application of an enhanced recovery pathway for ileostomy closure: a case-control trial with surprising results. Tech Coloproctol 22:295–300. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    D’Haeninck A, Wolthuis AM, Penninckx F, D’Hondt M, D’Hoore A (2011) Morbidity after closure of a defunctioning loop ileostomy. Acta Chir Belg 111(3):136–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lobo DN, Bostock KA, Neal KR, Perkins AC, Rowlands BJ, Allison SP (2002) Effect of salt and water balance on recovery of gastrointestinal function after elective colonic resection: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 359(9320):1812–1818. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gustafsson UO, Hausel J, Thorell A, Ljungqvist O, Soop M, Nygren J, Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Study G (2011) Adherence to the enhanced recovery after surgery protocol and outcomes after colorectal cancer surgery. Arch Surg 146(5):571–577. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vather R, Trivedi S, Bissett I (2013) Defining postoperative ileus: results of a systematic review and global survey. J Gastrointest Surg 17(5):962–972. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gero D, Gie O, Hubner M, Demartines N, Hahnloser D (2016) Postoperative ileus: in search of an international consensus on definition, diagnosis, and treatment. Langenbeck’s Arch Surg 402:149–158. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240(2):205–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Myles PS, Bellomo R, Corcoran T, Forbes A, Peyton P, Story D, Christophi C, Leslie K, McGuinness S, Parke R, Serpell J, MTV Chan, Painter T, McCluskey S, Minto G, Wallace S, Australian, New Zealand College of Anaesthetists Clinical Trials N, the A, New Zealand Intensive Care Society Clinical Trials G (2018) Restrictive versus liberal fluid therapy for major abdominal surgery. N Engl J Med.
  15. 15.
    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(5):462–472. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chen J, Wang DR, Yu HF, Zhao ZK, Wang LH, Li YK (2012) Defunctioning stoma in low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a meta- analysis of five recent studies. Hepatogastroenterology 59(118):1828–1831. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Abrisqueta J, Abellan I, Lujan J, Hernandez Q, Parrilla P (2014) Stimulation of the efferent limb before ileostomy closure: a randomized clinical trial. Dis Colon Rectum 57(12):1391–1396. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Garfinkle R, Trabulsi N, Morin N, Phang T, Liberman S, Feldman L, Fried G, Boutros M (2017) Study protocol evaluating the use of bowel stimulation before loop ileostomy closure to reduce postoperative ileus: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Color Dis 19(11):1024–1029. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Loffler T, Rossion I, Bruckner T, Diener MK, Koch M, von Frankenberg M, Pochhammer J, Thomusch O, Kijak T, Simon T, Mihaljevic AL, Kruger M, Stein E, Prechtl G, Hodina R, Michal W, Strunk R, Henkel K, Bunse J, Jaschke G, Politt D, Heistermann HP, Fusser M, Lange C, Stamm A, Vosschulte A, Holzer R, Partecke LI, Burdzik E, Hug HM, Luntz SP, Kieser M, Buchler MW, Weitz J, Group HT (2012) HAnd suture versus STApling for closure of loop ileostomy (HASTA trial): results of a multicenter randomized trial (DRKS00000040). Ann Surg 256 (5):828–835; discussion 835-826.
  20. 20.
    Loffler T, Rossion I, Goossen K, Saure D, Weitz J, Ulrich A, Buchler MW, Diener MK (2015) Hand suture versus stapler for closure of loop ileostomy--a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Langenbeck’s Arch Surg 400(2):193–205. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Myles PS, Andrews S, Nicholson J, Lobo DN, Mythen M (2017) Contemporary approaches to perioperative IV fluid therapy. World J Surg 41:2457–2463. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Marjanovic G, Villain C, Juettner E, zur Hausen A, Hoeppner J, Hopt UT, Drognitz O, Obermaier R (2009) Impact of different crystalloid volume regimes on intestinal anastomotic stability. Ann Surg 249(2):181–185. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Itobi E, Stroud M, Elia M (2006) Impact of oedema on recovery after major abdominal surgery and potential value of multifrequency bioimpedance measurements. Br J Surg 93(3):354–361. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Visceral SurgeryLausanne University Hospital CHUVLausanneSwitzerland
  2. 2.Centre Suisse d’Electronique et de Microtechnique (CSEM)NeuchâtelSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations