Cargando…

Comparison of specimen extraction site and another site for protective loop ileostomy in laparoscopic low anterior rectal resection: a retrospective comparative study

BACKGROUND: Protective loop ileostomy is commonly performed in laparoscopic low anterior rectal resection to prevent the serious complications of anastomotic fistula. It is usually created at the right lower quadrant of the abdomen and another wound is required for stoma. The study aimed to evaluate...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Liu, Chao, Zhang, Jizhun, Li, Leping, Zhang, Li, Shang, Liang, Ma, Yan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10102083/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37055576
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00423-023-02886-5
_version_ 1785025626332200960
author Liu, Chao
Zhang, Jizhun
Li, Leping
Zhang, Li
Shang, Liang
Ma, Yan
author_facet Liu, Chao
Zhang, Jizhun
Li, Leping
Zhang, Li
Shang, Liang
Ma, Yan
author_sort Liu, Chao
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Protective loop ileostomy is commonly performed in laparoscopic low anterior rectal resection to prevent the serious complications of anastomotic fistula. It is usually created at the right lower quadrant of the abdomen and another wound is required for stoma. The study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of ileostomy at the specimen extraction site (SES) and another site (AS) beside the auxiliary incision. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 101 eligible patients with pathologically diagnosed adenocarcinoma of the rectum from January 2020 to December 2021 in the study center. According to whether the ileostomy was at the specimen extraction site, patients were divided into SES group (40 patients) and AS group (61 patients). Clinicopathological characteristics, the intraoperative details, and postoperative outcomes of the two groups were measured. RESULTS: Univariate analysis showed that the operative time was significantly shorter and the blood loss was significantly less in the SES group than in the AS group during laparoscopic low anterior rectal resection, the time to first flatus was significantly shorter, and the pain was significantly less in the SES group than in the AS group during ileostomy closure. The postoperative complications were similar in both groups. Multivariable analysis showed that ileostomy at the specimen extraction site was a significant factor influencing the operative time and blood loss of rectal resection, and influencing the pain and the time to first flatus during ileostomy closure. CONCLUSION: Compared to ileostomy at AS, protective loop ileostomy at SES was time-saving and less bleeding during laparoscopic low anterior rectal resection, and more quick to first flatus and less pain during stoma closure, and did not lead to more postoperative complications. The median incision of the lower abdomen and the left lower abdominal incision were both good sites for ileostomy.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10102083
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-101020832023-04-15 Comparison of specimen extraction site and another site for protective loop ileostomy in laparoscopic low anterior rectal resection: a retrospective comparative study Liu, Chao Zhang, Jizhun Li, Leping Zhang, Li Shang, Liang Ma, Yan Langenbecks Arch Surg Research BACKGROUND: Protective loop ileostomy is commonly performed in laparoscopic low anterior rectal resection to prevent the serious complications of anastomotic fistula. It is usually created at the right lower quadrant of the abdomen and another wound is required for stoma. The study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of ileostomy at the specimen extraction site (SES) and another site (AS) beside the auxiliary incision. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 101 eligible patients with pathologically diagnosed adenocarcinoma of the rectum from January 2020 to December 2021 in the study center. According to whether the ileostomy was at the specimen extraction site, patients were divided into SES group (40 patients) and AS group (61 patients). Clinicopathological characteristics, the intraoperative details, and postoperative outcomes of the two groups were measured. RESULTS: Univariate analysis showed that the operative time was significantly shorter and the blood loss was significantly less in the SES group than in the AS group during laparoscopic low anterior rectal resection, the time to first flatus was significantly shorter, and the pain was significantly less in the SES group than in the AS group during ileostomy closure. The postoperative complications were similar in both groups. Multivariable analysis showed that ileostomy at the specimen extraction site was a significant factor influencing the operative time and blood loss of rectal resection, and influencing the pain and the time to first flatus during ileostomy closure. CONCLUSION: Compared to ileostomy at AS, protective loop ileostomy at SES was time-saving and less bleeding during laparoscopic low anterior rectal resection, and more quick to first flatus and less pain during stoma closure, and did not lead to more postoperative complications. The median incision of the lower abdomen and the left lower abdominal incision were both good sites for ileostomy. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2023-04-13 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC10102083/ /pubmed/37055576 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00423-023-02886-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Research
Liu, Chao
Zhang, Jizhun
Li, Leping
Zhang, Li
Shang, Liang
Ma, Yan
Comparison of specimen extraction site and another site for protective loop ileostomy in laparoscopic low anterior rectal resection: a retrospective comparative study
title Comparison of specimen extraction site and another site for protective loop ileostomy in laparoscopic low anterior rectal resection: a retrospective comparative study
title_full Comparison of specimen extraction site and another site for protective loop ileostomy in laparoscopic low anterior rectal resection: a retrospective comparative study
title_fullStr Comparison of specimen extraction site and another site for protective loop ileostomy in laparoscopic low anterior rectal resection: a retrospective comparative study
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of specimen extraction site and another site for protective loop ileostomy in laparoscopic low anterior rectal resection: a retrospective comparative study
title_short Comparison of specimen extraction site and another site for protective loop ileostomy in laparoscopic low anterior rectal resection: a retrospective comparative study
title_sort comparison of specimen extraction site and another site for protective loop ileostomy in laparoscopic low anterior rectal resection: a retrospective comparative study
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10102083/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37055576
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00423-023-02886-5
work_keys_str_mv AT liuchao comparisonofspecimenextractionsiteandanothersiteforprotectiveloopileostomyinlaparoscopiclowanteriorrectalresectionaretrospectivecomparativestudy
AT zhangjizhun comparisonofspecimenextractionsiteandanothersiteforprotectiveloopileostomyinlaparoscopiclowanteriorrectalresectionaretrospectivecomparativestudy
AT lileping comparisonofspecimenextractionsiteandanothersiteforprotectiveloopileostomyinlaparoscopiclowanteriorrectalresectionaretrospectivecomparativestudy
AT zhangli comparisonofspecimenextractionsiteandanothersiteforprotectiveloopileostomyinlaparoscopiclowanteriorrectalresectionaretrospectivecomparativestudy
AT shangliang comparisonofspecimenextractionsiteandanothersiteforprotectiveloopileostomyinlaparoscopiclowanteriorrectalresectionaretrospectivecomparativestudy
AT mayan comparisonofspecimenextractionsiteandanothersiteforprotectiveloopileostomyinlaparoscopiclowanteriorrectalresectionaretrospectivecomparativestudy