Can the Timing of Ileostomy Reversal Influence Functional Outcome?

Chang-Nam Kim

doi:10.3393/ac.2015.31.1.5

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Ann Coloproctol > Volume 31(1); 2015 > Article

Editorial Can the Timing of Ileostomy Reversal Influence Functional Outcome?: Chang-Nam Kim; Annals of Coloproctology 2015;31(1):5-6.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2015.31.1.5
Published online: February 28, 2015

Department of Surgery, Eulji University School of Medicine, Daejeon, Korea.

Correspondence to: Chang-Nam Kim, M.D. Department of Surgery, Eulji University Hospital, Eulji University School of Medicine, 95 Dunsan-seoro, Seo-gu, Daejeon 302-799, Korea. Tel: +82-42-259-1335, Fax: +82-42-259-1335, kimcn@eulji.ac.kr

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

prev next

3,195 Views
44 Download
6 Web of Science
7 Crossref
5 Scopus

Full Article

Download PDF

ARTICLE INFORMATION
REFERENCES

See Article on Page [Related article:] 23-28

During rectal cancer surgery, we often make a temporary defunctioning stoma like an ileostomy or a colostomy to protect the anastomosis. Generally, as part of the primary surgery, an ileostomy is more common than a colostomy because the construction and reversal of an ileostomy is easier than that of a colostomy and because an ileostomy is associated with fewer stoma-related complications than a colostomy is. As soon as the primary surgery is finished, many patients frequently ask about the timing of an ileostomy reversal. They are eager to undergo an ileostomy reversal as early as possible because an ileostomy is a very stressful condition by itself to the patients. At present, no consensus exists for the optimal timing for an ileostomy reversal. Therefore, the timing of an ileostomy closure can be exceedingly inconsistent among hospitals. Chand et al. [1] reported on timely closure of an ileostomy for patients who had undergone rectal cancer surgeries. They compared time to closure of the ileostomy between two centers. Center 1 had a plan to provide patients with a temporary date for ileostomy reversal: (1) if there are no reasons for delay, ileostomy closure will be performed 6-8 weeks after discharge; (2) for patients who undergo adjuvant chemotherapy, ileostomy reversal will be scheduled between the second and the third cycles of treatment (still within 12 weeks). Center 2 had a traditional follow-up in the outpatient clinic. Of the total 82 patients in the study, 30 patients (37%) underwent ileostomy closure within 12 weeks: In center 1, 23 of 34 patients (67%) underwent ileostomy closure within 12 weeks, but in center 2, just 7 of 48 patients (15%) underwent ileostomy reversal within 12 weeks. At 1 year, all patients in center 1 had undergone ileostomy closure, but in center 2, 5 of 48 patients (10%) had not. The study concluded that the majority of ileostomies were closed within 12 weeks when the patients were provided with a date for ileostomy reversal at discharge after the primary rectal surgery.

Although many surgeons generally perform an ileostomy reversal around 3 months after the primary rectal surgery, for many reasons, the operation sometimes may be delayed by more than 3 months. den Dulk et al. [2] reported factors that limited stoma reversal in patients who had undergone a total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer. A total of 924 patients with rectal cancer underwent a low anterior resection. In 523 of those 924 patients (57%), a primary stoma was created after a low anterior resection: 329 of those 523 patients (63%) had ileostomies and 194 (37%) had colostomies. The median follow-up was 7.1 years (range, 2.5-9.8 years). Of all stomas, 19% were never reversed during follow-up. The study concluded that a permanent stoma was highly related to postoperative complications (anastomotic leakage, abscess, sepsis, peritonitis, fistula, bleeding, stenosis, and others) and secondary constructed stomas.

When patients with rectal cancer successfully complete ileostomy closure, one would think that they would be content. However, another obstacle awaits them: fecal incontinence is a serious complication after an ileostomy reversal. Walma et al. [3] reported predictors of fecal incontinence and quality of life after a TME. For outcome measures, they used the fecal incontinence quality of life (FIQoL) scale [4] and the Wexner incontinence score [5]. They concluded that a diverting ileostomy is a predictor for an impaired FIQoL subscale coping/behavior after a TME. Ileostomy closure within 3 months presented a better functional outcome (Wexner scores, FIQoL total and all subscales) compared with ileostomy reversal after 3 months. They supposed that the etiology of this result might be a reduced functional adaptability of the neorectum after a long diversion. This result is very useful to surgeons who want to determine when to perform the ileostomy closure. However, the study had some limitations that need to be considered: First, the number of patients who underwent ileostomy closure within 3 months was small (n = 17) compared with the number of patients who underwent ileostomy closure after 3 months (n = 41). Second, although no statistically significant differences in the incidences of low rectal tumors (≤5 cm) were noted, the two groups in the study seemed to be quite different: 1 of 17 patients (5.9%) underwent ileostomy closure within 3 months while 8 of 41 patients (19.5%) underwent ileostomy closure after 3 months. As to the better functional outcomes reported in patients who underwent ileostomy closure within 3 months, the reader should cautiously consider the small number of patients and the low incidence of low rectal cancer. Can the timing of the ileostomy reversal influence functional outcome?

Conclusively, although some of the results reported in this paper may be subject to debate, the results do teach some important lessons; i.e., the ileostomy itself may be related to impaired FIQoL after ileostomy closure, and when no reason exists for a delay, ileostomy reversal within 3 months after primary surgery is recommended and is closely associated with better functional outcome.

ARTICLE INFORMATION

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

REFERENCES

1. Chand M, Nash GF, Talbot RW. Timely closure of loop ileostomy following anterior resection for rectal cancer. Eur J Cancer Care 2008;17:611–615.Article
2. den Dulk M, Smit M, Peeters KC, Kranenbarg EM, Rutten HJ, Wiggers T, et al. A multivariate analysis of limiting factors for stoma reversal in patients with rectal cancer entered into the total mesorectal excision (TME) trial: a retrospective study. Lancet Oncol 2007;8:297–303. Article PubMed
3. Walma MS, Kornmann VN, Boerma D, de Roos MA, van Westreenen HL. Predictors of fecal incontinence and related quality of life after a total mesorectal excision with primary anastomosis for patients with rectal cancer. Ann Coloproctol 2015;31:23–28.Article PubMed PMC
4. Rockwood TH, Church JM, Fleshman JW, Kane RL, Mavrantonis C, Thorson AG, et al. Fecal incontinence quality of life scale: quality of life instrument for patients with fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 2000;43:9–16. Article PubMed
5. Rockwood TH, Church JM, Fleshman JW, Kane RL, Mavrantonis C, Thorson AG, et al. Patient and surgeon ranking of the severity of symptoms associated with fecal incontinence: the fecal incontinence severity index. Dis Colon Rectum 1999;42:1525–1532. Article PubMed

Figure & Data

References

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Efferent limb stimulation prior to loop ileostomy closure: a systematic review and meta-analysis
A. J. Lloyd, N. P. Hardy, P. Jordan, E. J. Ryan, M. Whelan, C. Clancy, J. O’Riordan, D. O. Kavanagh, P. Neary, S. M. Sahebally
Techniques in Coloproctology.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Complications associated with loop ileostomy reversal delayed greater than twelve months
Jinman Cai, Madaliene Denison, Hunter Sharp, Mia Edelson, James Kwok, Molly Scarbro, Farrell Adkins
Scientific Reports.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Laparoscopic vs. open loop ileostomy reversal: a meta-analysis of randomized and non-randomized studies
Fabio Rondelli, Alessandro Gemini, Saverio Cerasari, Stefano Avenia, Walter Bugiantella, Jacopo Desiderio
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Does the timing of protective ileostomy closure post-low anterior resection have an impact on the outcome? A retrospective study
Fozan Sauri, Ahmad Sakr, Ho Seung Kim, Mohammed Alessa, Radwan Torky, Eman Zakarneh, Seung Yoon Yang, Nam Kyu Kim
Asian Journal of Surgery.2021; 44(1): 374. CrossRef
Laparoscopic loop ileostomy reversal with intracorporeal anastomosis is associated with shorter length of stay without increased direct cost
Sarath Sujatha-Bhaskar, Matthew Whealon, Colette S. Inaba, Christina Y. Koh, Mehraneh D. Jafari, Steven Mills, Alessio Pigazzi, Michael J. Stamos, Joseph C. Carmichael
Surgical Endoscopy.2019; 33(2): 644. CrossRef
Cases of low anterior resection and ileostomy for rectal cancer that required more than 18 months for stoma closure
Yutaka Kojima, Kazuhiro Sakamoto, Yuichi Tomiki, Rina Takahashi, Ryoichi Tsukamoto, Toshiaki Hagiwara, Kunihiko Nagakari
Journal of Surgical Case Reports.2019;[Epub] CrossRef
Triple VY Advancement Flap For Vulva And Anal Reconstruction In Extensive Perineal Squamous Cell Carcinoma In-Situ
Chairani Fitri Saphira, Bien Keem Tan, Sun Kuie Tay
Jurnal Plastik Rekonstruksi.2018; 4(2): 113. CrossRef

Cite this Article

Cite this Article: export Copy Download Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.