Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The influence of diverting loop ileostomy vs. colostomy on postoperative morbidity in restorative anterior resection for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis
  • Published:
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the morbidity of loop ileostomy (LI) and loop colostomy (LC) creation in restorative anterior resection for rectal cancer as well as the morbidity of their reversal.

Methods

PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE via Ovid, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched for records published from 1980 to 2017 by three independent researchers. The primary endpoint was overall morbidity after stoma creation and reversal. Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio (OR) was used to compare categorical variables. Clinical significance was evaluated using numbers needed to treat (NNT).

Results

Six studies (two randomized controlled trials and four observational studies) totaling 1063 patients (666 LI and 397 LC) were included in the meta-analysis. Overall morbidity rate after both stoma creation and closure was 15.6% in LI vs. 20.4% in LC [OR(95%CI) = 0.67 (0.29, 1.58); p = 0.36] [NNT(95%CI) = 21 (> 10.4 to benefit, > 2430.2 to harm)]. Morbidity rate after stoma creation was both statistically and clinically significantly lower after LI [18.2% vs. 30.6%; OR(95%CI) = 0.42 (0.25, 0.70); p = 0.001; NNT(95%CI) = 9 (4.7, 29.3)]. Dehydration rate was 3.1% (8/259) in LI vs. 0% (0/168) in LC. The difference was not statistically or clinically significant [OR(95%CI) = 3.00 (0.74, 12.22); p = 0.13; NNT (95%CI) = 33 (19.2, 101.9)]. Ileus rates after stoma closure were significantly higher in LI as compared to LC [5.2% vs. 1.7%; OR(95%CI) = 2.65 (1.13, 6.18); p = 0.02].

Conclusions

This meta-analysis found no difference between LI and LC in overall morbidity after stoma creation and closure. Morbidity rates following the creation of LI were significantly decreased at the cost of a risk for dehydration.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Montedori A, Cirocchi R, Farinella E, Sciannameo F, Abraha I (2010) Covering ileo- or colostomy in anterior resection for rectal carcinoma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 5:CD006878. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006878.pub2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 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. Hepato-Gastroenterology 59(118):1828–1831. https://doi.org/10.5754/hge11786

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Huser N, Michalski CW, Erkan M, Schuster T, Rosenberg R, Kleeff J, Friess H (2008) Systematic review and meta-analysis of the role of defunctioning stoma in low rectal cancer surgery. Ann Surg 248(1):52–60. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e318176bf65

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.6594

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Khoury GA, Lewis MC, Meleagros L, Lewis AA (1987) Colostomy or ileostomy after colorectal anastomosis?: a randomized trial. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 69(1):5–7

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Williams NS, Nasmyth DG, Jones D, Smith AH (1986) Defunctioning stomas: a prospective controlled trial comparing loop ileostomy with loop transverse colostomy. Br J Surg 73(7):566–570

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 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(1):76–79. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2168.1998.00526.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Rullier E, Toux NL, Lourent C, Gerrelon J-L, Parneiz M, Saric J (2001) Loop ileostomy versus loop colostomy for Defunctioning low anastomoses during rectal Cancer. World J Surg 25(3):274–278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002680020091

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Edwards DP, Leppington-Clarke A, Secton R, Heald RJ, Moran BJ (2001) Stoma-related complications are more frequent after transverse colostomy than loop ileostomy: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Br J Surg 88(3):360–363. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2168.2001.01727.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Law WL, Chi WK, Choi HK (2002) Randomized clinical trial comparing loop ileostomy and loop transverse colostomy for faecal diversion following total mesorectal excision. Br J Surg 89(6):704–708. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2168.2002.02082.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Gastinger I, Marusch D, Steinert R, Woiff S, Koeckerling F, Lippert H (2005) Protective defunctioning stoma in low anterior resection for rectal carcinoma. Br J Surg 92(9):1137–1142. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.5045

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Rondelli F, Reboldi P, Rulli A, Barberini F, Guerrisi A, Izzo L, Bolognese A, Covarelli P, Boselli C, Becattini C, Noya G (2009) Loop ileostomy versus loop colostomy for fecal diversion after colorectal or coloanal anastomosis: a meta-analysis. Int J Color Dis 24(5):479–488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-009-0662-x

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Chen J, Zhang Y, Jiang C, Yu H, Zhang K, Zhang M, Zhang GQ, Zhou SJ (2013) Temporary ileostomy versus colostomy for colorectal anastomosis: evidence from 12 studies. Scand J Gastroenterol 48(5):556–562. https://doi.org/10.3109/00365521.2013.779019

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Guenaga KF, Lustosa SA, Saad SS, Saconato H, Matos D (2007) Ileostomy or colostomy for temporary decompression of colorectal anastomosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1:CD004647

    Google Scholar 

  15. Lertsithichai P, Rattanapichart P (2004) Temporary ileostomy versus colostomy: a meta-analysis of complications. Asian J Surg 27(3):202–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1015-9584(09)60033-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Amelung FJ, Van’t Hullenaar CP, Verheijen PM, Consten EC (2017) Ileostomy versus colostomy: which is preferable? Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 161(0):D788

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Higgins JP, Green S (2011) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Vol. 4. Wiley, England

    Google Scholar 

  18. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group (2010) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg 8:336–341

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, Moher D, Becker BJ, Sipe TA, Thacker SB (2000) Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 283(15):2008–2012

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Horan TC, Gaynes RP, Martone WJ, Jarvis WR, Emori TG (1992) CDC definitions of nosocomial surgical site infections, 1992: a modification of CDC definitions of surgical wound infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 13:606–608

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Goossen K, Tenckhoff S, Probst P, Grummich K, Mihaljevic AL, Büchler MW, Diener MK (2018) Optimal literature search for systematic reviews in surgery. Langenbeck’s Arch Surg 403(1):119–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I (2005) Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol 5:13

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327:557–560

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Cook RJ, Sackett DL (1995) The number needed to treat: a clinically useful measure of treatment effect. BMJ 310(6977):452–454

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Altman DG (1998) Confidence intervals for the number needed to treat. BMJ 317(7168):1309–1312

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Mala T, Nesbakken A (2008) Morbidity related to the use of protective stoma in anterior resection for rectal cancer. Color Dis 10(8):785–788. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-1318.2007.01456.x

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Tocci A, Mazzoni G, Miccini M, Bettelli E, Cassini D (2002) Use of ileostomy and colostomy as temporal derivation in colorectal surgery. G Chir 23:48–52

    Google Scholar 

  28. Nagle DA (2013) Toward better understanding of readmission for physiologic complications of ileostomy. Dis Colon Rectum 56(8):933–934. https://doi.org/10.1097/DCR.0b013e31828d011e

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Corman ML (2012) Intestinal stomas. In: Corman ML, Bergamaschi RCM, Nicholls RJ, Fazio VW (eds) Corman’s Colon and Rectal surgery, 6th edn. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, New York, pp 1421–1422

    Google Scholar 

  30. Klink CD, Lioupis K, Binnebosel M et al (2011) Diversion stoma after colorectal surgery: loop colostomy or ileostomy? Int J Color Dis 26(4):431–436. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-010-1123-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Bailey CM, Wheeler JM, Birks M, Farouk R (2003) The incidence and causes of permanent stoma after anterior resection. Color Dis 5(4):331–334

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Sakai Y, Nelson H, Larson D, Maidl L, Young-Fadok T, Ilstrup D (2001) Temporary transverse colostomy vs loop ileostomy in diversion: a case-matched study. Arch Surg 136(3):338–342

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Fasth S, Hultén L, Palselius I (1980) Loop ileostomy--an attractive alternative to a temporary transverse colostomy. Acta Chir Scand 146(3):203–207

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Rutegård J, Dahlgren S (1987) Transverse colostomy or loop ileostomy as diverting stoma in colorectal surgery. Acta Chir Scand 153(3):229–232

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Göhring U, Lehner B, Schlag P (1988) Ileostomy versus colostomy as temporary deviation stoma in relation to stoma closure. Chirurg 59(12):842–844

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Tilney HS, Sains PS, Lovegrove RE, Reese GE, Heriot AG, Tekkis PP (2007) Comparison of outcomes following ileostomy versus colostomy for defunctioning colorectal anastomoses. World J Surg 31(5):1142–1151

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Gavriilidis P, Azoulay D, Taflampas P (2018) Loop transverse colostomy versus loop ileostomy for defunctioning of colorectal anastomosis: a systematic review, updated conventional meta-analysis, and cumulative meta-analysis. Surg Today. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-018-1708-x

  38. Geng HZ, Nasier D, Liu B, Gao H, Xu YK (2015) Meta-analysis of elective surgical complications related to defunctioning loop compared with loop colostomy after low anterior resection for rectal carcinoma. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 97(7):494–501. https://doi.org/10.1308/003588415X14181254789240

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study has not received any funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Section of Colorectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Westchester Medical Center, New York Medical College, Taylor Pavilion, Suite D-365, 100 Woods Road, Valhalla, NY, 10595, USA

    A. Chudner, M. Gachabayov, A. Dyatlov, H. Lee, R. Essani & Roberto Bergamaschi

Authors
  1. A. Chudner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Gachabayov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. Dyatlov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. H. Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. R. Essani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Roberto Bergamaschi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND Final approval of the version to be published; AND Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roberto Bergamaschi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Not applicable as this is a summary design study.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 18 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chudner, A., Gachabayov, M., Dyatlov, A. et al. The influence of diverting loop ileostomy vs. colostomy on postoperative morbidity in restorative anterior resection for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Langenbecks Arch Surg 404, 129–139 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-019-01758-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-019-01758-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation