Cargando…

Early vs. standard reversal ileostomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Formation of a defunctioning loop ileostomy is common after mid and low rectal resection. Historically, they were reversed between 3 and 6 months after initial resection. Recently, earlier closure (< 14 days) has been suggested by some current randomised controlled trials. The aim of...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: O’Sullivan, N. J., Temperley, H. C., Nugent, T. S., Low, E. Z., Kavanagh, D. O., Larkin, J. O., Mehigan, B. J., McCormick, P. H., Kelly, M. E.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9123394/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35596904
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10151-022-02629-6
_version_ 1784711546247577600
author O’Sullivan, N. J.
Temperley, H. C.
Nugent, T. S.
Low, E. Z.
Kavanagh, D. O.
Larkin, J. O.
Mehigan, B. J.
McCormick, P. H.
Kelly, M. E.
author_facet O’Sullivan, N. J.
Temperley, H. C.
Nugent, T. S.
Low, E. Z.
Kavanagh, D. O.
Larkin, J. O.
Mehigan, B. J.
McCormick, P. H.
Kelly, M. E.
author_sort O’Sullivan, N. J.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Formation of a defunctioning loop ileostomy is common after mid and low rectal resection. Historically, they were reversed between 3 and 6 months after initial resection. Recently, earlier closure (< 14 days) has been suggested by some current randomised controlled trials. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of early stoma closure on surgical and patient outcomes. METHODS: A systematic review of the current randomised controlled trial literature comparing early and standard ileostomy closure after rectal surgery was performed. Specifically, we examined surgical outcomes including; morbidity, mortality and quality of life. RESULTS: Six studies met the predefined criteria and were included in our analysis. 275 patients underwent early stoma closure compared with 259 patients having standard closure. Overall morbidity was similar between both groups (25.5% vs. 21.6%) (OR, 1.47; 95% CI 0.75–2.87). However, there tended to be more reoperations (8.4 vs. 4.2%) (OR, 2.02, 95% CI 0.99–4.14) and small bowel obstructions/postoperative ileus (9.3% vs. 4.4%) (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.22–0.90) in the early closure group, but no difference across the other domains. CONCLUSIONS: Early closure appears to be a feasible in highly selective cases after good perioperative counselling and shared decision-making. Further research on quality of life outcomes and long term benefits is necessary to help define which patients are suitable candidates for early closure.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9123394
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-91233942022-05-21 Early vs. standard reversal ileostomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis O’Sullivan, N. J. Temperley, H. C. Nugent, T. S. Low, E. Z. Kavanagh, D. O. Larkin, J. O. Mehigan, B. J. McCormick, P. H. Kelly, M. E. Tech Coloproctol Review BACKGROUND: Formation of a defunctioning loop ileostomy is common after mid and low rectal resection. Historically, they were reversed between 3 and 6 months after initial resection. Recently, earlier closure (< 14 days) has been suggested by some current randomised controlled trials. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of early stoma closure on surgical and patient outcomes. METHODS: A systematic review of the current randomised controlled trial literature comparing early and standard ileostomy closure after rectal surgery was performed. Specifically, we examined surgical outcomes including; morbidity, mortality and quality of life. RESULTS: Six studies met the predefined criteria and were included in our analysis. 275 patients underwent early stoma closure compared with 259 patients having standard closure. Overall morbidity was similar between both groups (25.5% vs. 21.6%) (OR, 1.47; 95% CI 0.75–2.87). However, there tended to be more reoperations (8.4 vs. 4.2%) (OR, 2.02, 95% CI 0.99–4.14) and small bowel obstructions/postoperative ileus (9.3% vs. 4.4%) (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.22–0.90) in the early closure group, but no difference across the other domains. CONCLUSIONS: Early closure appears to be a feasible in highly selective cases after good perioperative counselling and shared decision-making. Further research on quality of life outcomes and long term benefits is necessary to help define which patients are suitable candidates for early closure. Springer International Publishing 2022-05-21 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC9123394/ /pubmed/35596904 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10151-022-02629-6 Text en © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted research re-use and secondary analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic.
spellingShingle Review
O’Sullivan, N. J.
Temperley, H. C.
Nugent, T. S.
Low, E. Z.
Kavanagh, D. O.
Larkin, J. O.
Mehigan, B. J.
McCormick, P. H.
Kelly, M. E.
Early vs. standard reversal ileostomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title Early vs. standard reversal ileostomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Early vs. standard reversal ileostomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Early vs. standard reversal ileostomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Early vs. standard reversal ileostomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Early vs. standard reversal ileostomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort early vs. standard reversal ileostomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9123394/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35596904
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10151-022-02629-6
work_keys_str_mv AT osullivannj earlyvsstandardreversalileostomyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT temperleyhc earlyvsstandardreversalileostomyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT nugentts earlyvsstandardreversalileostomyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT lowez earlyvsstandardreversalileostomyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT kavanaghdo earlyvsstandardreversalileostomyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT larkinjo earlyvsstandardreversalileostomyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT mehiganbj earlyvsstandardreversalileostomyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT mccormickph earlyvsstandardreversalileostomyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT kellyme earlyvsstandardreversalileostomyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis