Early versus late closure of protective loop ileostomy: functional significant results in a preliminary analysis.

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q2 SURGERY Minerva Surgery Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-16 DOI:10.23736/S2724-5691.24.10305-X
Salvatore Tramontano, Gerardo Sarno, Biancamaria Iacone, Adriana Luciano, Alfredo Giordano, Umberto Bracale
{"title":"Early versus late closure of protective loop ileostomy: functional significant results in a preliminary analysis.","authors":"Salvatore Tramontano, Gerardo Sarno, Biancamaria Iacone, Adriana Luciano, Alfredo Giordano, Umberto Bracale","doi":"10.23736/S2724-5691.24.10305-X","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Protective loop ileostomy (PLI), commonly performed in rectal cancer surgery, is one of the most reliable methods to reduce the risk of sepsis associated with anastomotic complications. The correct timing of PLI closure is not well defined. Recently, most surgeons proposed to close early the PLI. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of the timing of stoma closure on postoperative outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We analyzed prospectively data of patients who received PLI anterior resection for rectal cancer between January 2020 to June 2022. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to the timing of stoma closure, until four weeks (EC group) and more than four weeks (LC group). Outpatient clinic follow-up, perioperative data, postoperative complications and evidence of anterior resection syndrome with the Low-Anterior Resection Score (LARS) score were recorded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the EC group 24 patients were included while 27 patients were considered for LC group. There were no differences between the groups with respect to all parameters, except for recourse to adjuvant therapy, higher for LC group. Perioperative analyzed characteristics were similar among groups. There was no statistically significant difference between the EC group and the LC group for complication rate. LARS score was higher in the LC group for score >20 and >30.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Timing of PLI closure was not a significant independent predictor of post-closure complications rate. LARS incidence was significantly related to longer time of closure, with probably late recovery of motility function, but this should be confirmed by randomized studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":29847,"journal":{"name":"Minerva Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minerva Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S2724-5691.24.10305-X","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Protective loop ileostomy (PLI), commonly performed in rectal cancer surgery, is one of the most reliable methods to reduce the risk of sepsis associated with anastomotic complications. The correct timing of PLI closure is not well defined. Recently, most surgeons proposed to close early the PLI. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of the timing of stoma closure on postoperative outcomes.

Methods: We analyzed prospectively data of patients who received PLI anterior resection for rectal cancer between January 2020 to June 2022. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to the timing of stoma closure, until four weeks (EC group) and more than four weeks (LC group). Outpatient clinic follow-up, perioperative data, postoperative complications and evidence of anterior resection syndrome with the Low-Anterior Resection Score (LARS) score were recorded.

Results: In the EC group 24 patients were included while 27 patients were considered for LC group. There were no differences between the groups with respect to all parameters, except for recourse to adjuvant therapy, higher for LC group. Perioperative analyzed characteristics were similar among groups. There was no statistically significant difference between the EC group and the LC group for complication rate. LARS score was higher in the LC group for score >20 and >30.

Conclusions: Timing of PLI closure was not a significant independent predictor of post-closure complications rate. LARS incidence was significantly related to longer time of closure, with probably late recovery of motility function, but this should be confirmed by randomized studies.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
保护性环形回肠造口术早期关闭与晚期关闭的对比:初步分析的显著功能性结果。
背景:保护性回肠造口术(PLI)通常在直肠癌手术中实施,是降低与吻合口并发症相关的败血症风险的最可靠方法之一。关闭回肠造口的正确时机尚未明确。最近,大多数外科医生建议尽早关闭 PLI。本研究旨在评估造口关闭时机对术后效果的影响:我们对 2020 年 1 月至 2022 年 6 月期间接受 PLI 前切除术的直肠癌患者的数据进行了前瞻性分析。根据造口关闭时间将患者分为两组,即四周前(EC 组)和四周以上(LC 组)。记录门诊随访、围手术期数据、术后并发症以及低位前切除评分(LARS)显示的前切除综合征证据:EC组有24名患者,LC组有27名患者。除了LC组采用辅助治疗的比例较高外,两组在所有参数上均无差别。各组的围手术期分析特征相似。EC组和LC组在并发症发生率方面没有统计学差异。LARS评分大于20分和大于30分的LC组较高:结论:PLI闭合时间并非闭合后并发症发生率的重要独立预测因素。LARS发生率与闭合时间长短有明显关系,可能与运动功能恢复较晚有关,但这应通过随机研究加以证实。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Minerva Surgery
Minerva Surgery SURGERY-
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
7.10%
发文量
320
期刊最新文献
Analysis of the influence of different surgical methods on the gynecological endocrine status of uterine fibroids. Analysis of the value of combined measurement of serum immunoglobulin G and subtype immunoglobulin G4 in adult autoimmune glomerulonephritis. Effect of preoperative visit combined with comfort nursing in operating room nursing and postoperative hypothermia incidence and its application. Laparoscopic adrenalectomy performed with the Endo GIA™ Stapler as an easy and safe approach. The application value of the multidisciplinary team model led by specialist nurses in pressure ulcer management.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1