Protective Stomy as a Complement to Anterior Rectal Resection. Analysis of Authors' Material and Literature Review

Open access

Protective Stomy as a Complement to Anterior Rectal Resection. Analysis of Authors' Material and Literature Review

Anastomotic leak after anterior rectal resection for cancer is one of the most dangerous complications of the procedure. Protective stomy is a way to avoid life-threatening consequences of this complication. The procedure is still under evaluation.

The aim of the study was to evaluate the usefulness of forming a protective stomy as part of anterior rectal cancer resection on the basis of an analysis of the authors' material.

Material and methods. In 2008 - 2009, we treated 111 patients with rectal cancer. Thirty-two of those patients received preoperative radio(chemo)therapy. Eighty-four patients (76%) underwent resection of the primary tumour. In 20 patients (24%), we performed abdominoperineal or abdominosacral resection; in 6 (7%) cases the Hartmann procedure was used and in 58 (69%) cases anterior rectal resection was performed. In 53 of 58 cases, the resections were assessed as curative and in 5 as palliative. In 18 of 58 (31%) patients, anterior resections were defined as low anterior resections. Twelve (67%) of these patients were subjected to preoperative radio(chemo)therapy. Two of 58 patients, who underwent anterior resection, had been treated by stomy creation before the radical procedure. One of them required neoadjuvant radiotherapy. In the second patient with the stomy, we restored the intestinal continuity during the primary tumour resection. Among the remaining 40 patients, only one underwent protective stomy creation during the resective procedure. This patient did not require preoperative radiotherapy.

Results. We have not found any clinical indications of anastomotic leak in the analysed group of 58 patients subjected to anterior rectal resection for cancer.

Conclusions. Our modest experience reaffirms our conviction that anterior rectal cancer resection does not require routine protective stomy creation, also when low anterior resection follows preoperative radiotherapy.

Corman JM, Odenheimer DB: Securing the loop - historic review of the methods used for creating a loop colostomy. Dis Colon Rectum 1991; 34: 1014-21.

Boccola MA, Lin J, Rozen WM, Ho YH: Reducing anastomotic leakage in oncologic colorectal surgery: an evidence-based review. Anticancer Res 2010; 30: 601-07.

Wang L, Gu J: Risk factors for symptomatic anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection for rectal cancer with 30 gy/10 f/2 w preoperative radiotherapy. World J Surg 2010; 34: 1080-85.

Da Silva GM, Berho M, Wexner SD, et al.: Histologic analysis of the irradiated anal sphincter. Dis Colon Rectum 2003; 46: 1492-97.

Cheragwandi A, Nieuwenhuis DH, Gagner M, et al.: An update of available innovative staple line reinforcement materials in colorectal surgery. Surg Technol Int 2008; 17: 131-37.

Gastinger I, Marusch F, Steinert R, et al.: Protective defunctioning stoma in low anterior resection for rectal carcinoma. Br J Surg 2005; 92: 1137-42.

Hüser N, Michalski CW, Erkan M, et al.: Systematic review and meta-analysis of the role of defunctioning stoma in low rectal cancer surgery. Ann Surg 2008; 248: 52-60.

Matthiessen P, Hallböök O, Rutegård J, et al.: Defunctioning stoma reduces symptomatic anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection of the rectum for cancer. Ann Surg 2007; 246: 207-14.

Chow A, Tilney HS, Paraskeva P, et al.: The morbidity surrounding reversal of defunctioning ileostomies: a systematic review of 48 studies including 6,107 cases. Int J Colorectal Dis 2009; 24: 711-23.

Shellito PC: Complications of abdominal stoma surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 1998; 41: 1562-72.

Tan WS, Tang CL, Shi L, et al.: Meta-analysis of defunctioning stomas in low anterior resection for rectal cancer. Br J Surg 2009; 96: 462-72.

Buchs NC, Gervaz P, Secic M, et al.: Incidence, consequences, and risk factors for anastomotic dehiscence after colorectal surgery: a prospective monocentric study. Int J Colorectal Dis 2008; 23: 265-70.

Lefebure B, Tuech JJ, Bridoux V, et al.: Evaluation of selective defunctioning stoma after low anterior resection for rectal cancer. Int J Colorectal Dis 2008; 23: 283-88.

Dulk M, Marijnen CAM, Collette L, et al.: Multicentre analysis of oncological and survival outcomes following anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer surgery. Br J Surg 2009; 96: 1066-75.

Lustosa SA, Matos D, Atallah AN, et al.: Stapled versus handsewn methods for colorectal anastomosis surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2001; 3: CD003144.

Guenaga KF, Matos D, Castro AA, et al.: Mechanical bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003; 2: CD001544.

Jesus EC, Karliczek A, Matos D, et al.: Prophylactic anastomotic drainage for colorectal surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004; 4: CD002100.

Ricciardi R, Roberts PL, Marcello PW, et al.: Anastomotic leak testing after colorectal resection; what are the data? Arch Surg 2009; 144: 407-11.

Meyerhardt JA, Tepper JE, Niedźwiecki D, et al.: Impact of hospital procedure volume on surgical operation and long-term outcomes in high-risk curatively resected rectal cancer: findings from the Intergroup 0114 Study. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22: 166-74.

Wibe A, Syse A, Andersen E, et al.: Oncological outcomes after total mesorectal excision for cure for cancer of the lower rectum: anterior vs. abdominoperineal resection. Dis Colon Rectum 2004; 47: 48-58.

Ho Y-H, Ashour MAT: Techniques for colorectal anastomosis. World J Gastroenterol 2010; 16: 1610-21.

Rondelli F, Reboldi P, Rulli A, et al.: Loop ileostomy versus loop colostomy for fecal diversion after colorectal or coloanal anastomosis: a metaanalysis. Int J Colorectal Dis 2009; 24: 479-88.

Akiyoshi T, Fujimoto Y, Konishi T, et al.: Complications of loop ileostomy closure in patients with rectal tumor. World J Surg 2010; 34: 1937-42.

Polish Journal of Surgery

The Journal of Foundation of the Polish Journal of Surgery

Journal Information

CiteScore 2016: 0.29

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.166
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.207


All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 193 123 7
PDF Downloads 66 41 4