Temporary Tube Stoma versus Conventional Loop Stoma for the Protection of a Low Anastomosis in Colorectal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online March, 2016
Temporary Tube Stoma versus Conventional Loop Stoma for the Protection of a Low Anastomosis in Colorectal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of temporary tube stoma and conventional loop stoma for the protection of a low anastomosis in colorectal cancer. A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trails. Primary outcome measures were anastomotic leakage rate, the reoperation rate for anastomotic leakage, and stoma-related complications. Secondary outcome measures were operation time, length of hospital stay, time to stoma closure, and permanent stoma rate. Four studies were carried out and 642 patients (332 with temporary tube stoma and 310 with conventional loop stoma) met the inclusion criteria. The incidences of anastomotic leakage and reoperation rate were statistically similar in tube stoma and loop stoma groups. In comparison with conventional loop stoma, temporary tube stoma was associated with a significantly less stoma-related complications (odds ratio = 0.20; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.08–0.50), and shorter operation and hospital stay time (weighted mean difference = -47.28 minutes, 95% CI: -74.68 to -19.88; and weighted mean difference = -5.22 days, 95% CI: -10.32 to -0.13, respectively). Time to stoma closure was significantly shorter in the temporary tube stoma groups (weighted mean difference = -114.58 days, 95% CI: -148.38 to -80.77). Patients receiving temporary tube stoma had lower rates of stoma-related complications, shorter operation and hospital stay time, and stoma closure time. Tube can be easily removed without second surgery in most cases. Therefore, temporary tube stoma is a feasible and effective alternative to conventional loop stoma for the protection of a low colorectal anastomosis.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
DehniN., SchlegelR.D., CunninghamC.Influence of a defunctioning stoma on leakage rates after low colorectal anastomosis and colonic J pouch-anal anastomosis.Br J Surg1998; 85: 1114–7.
2.
KaranjiaN.D., CorderA.P., BearnP.Leakage from stapled low anastomosis after total mesorectal excision of the rectum.Br J Surg1994; 81: 1224–6.
3.
CarlsenE., SchlichtingE., GuldvogI.Effect of the introduction of total mesorectal excision for the treatment of rectal cancer.Br J Surg1998; 85: 526–9.
4.
PoonR.T., ChuK.W., HoJ.W.Prospective evaluation of selective defunctioning stoma for low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision.World J Surg1999; 23: 463–7.
5.
MatthiessenP., HallböökO., AnderssonM.Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after anterior resection of the rectum.Colorectal Dis2004; 6: 462–9.
6.
BuieW.D., MacLeanA.R., AttardJ.A.Neoadjuvant chemoradiation increases the risk of pelvic sepsis after radical excision of rectal cancer.Dis Colon Rectum2005; 48: 1868–74.
7.
SmithJ.D., PatyP.B., GuillemJ.G.Anastomotic leak is not associated with oncologic outcome in patients undergoing low anterior resection for rectal cancer.Ann Surg2012; 256: 1034–8.
8.
LinJ.K., YuehT.C., ChangS.C.The influence of fecal diversion and anastomotic leakage on survival after resection of rectal cancer.J Gastrointest Surg2011; 15: 2251–61.
9.
LowryA., SimmangC., BoulosP.Consensus statement of definitions for anorectal physiology and rectal cancer: report of the tripartite consensus conference on definitions for anorectal physiology and rectal cancer, Washington, DC, May 1, 1999.Dis Colon Rectum2001; 44: 915–9.
10.
HüserN., MichalskiC.W., ErkanM.Systematic review and meta-analysis of the role of defunctioning stoma in low rectal cancer surgery.Ann Surg2008; 248: 52–60.
11.
TanW.S., TangC.L., ShiL.Meta-analysis of defunctioning stomas in low anterior resection for rectal cancer.Br J Surg2009; 96: 462–72.
12.
GastingerI., MaruschF., SteinertR.Protective defunctioning stoma in low anterior resection for rectal carcinoma.Br J Surg2005; 92: 1137–42.
13.
LindgrenR., HallböökO., RutegårdJ.What is the risk for a permanent stoma after low anterior resection of the rectum for cancer? A six-year follow-up of a multicenter trial.Dis Colon Rectum2011; 54: 41–7.
14.
TschmelitschJ., WykypielH., PrommeggerR.Colostomy vs tube cecostomy for protection of a low anastomosis in rectal cancer.Arch Surg1999; 134: 1385–8.
15.
RondelliF., BalzarottiR., BugiantellaW.Temporary percutaneous ileostomy versus conventional loop ileostomy in mechanical extraperitoneal colorectal anastomosis: a retrospective study.Eur J Surg Oncol2012; 38: 1065–70.
16.
SaberA., HokkamE.N.Efficacy of protective tube cecostomy after restorative resection for colorectal cancer: a randomized trial.Int J Surg2013; 11: 350–3.
17.
HuaH., XuJ., ChenW.Defunctioning cannula ileostomy after lower anterior resection of rectal cancer.Dis Colon Rectum2014; 57: 1267–74.
18.
RondelliF., MarianiL., BoniM.Preliminary report of a new technique for temporary faecal diversion after extraperitoneal colorectal anastomosis.Colorectal Dis2010; 12: 1159–61.
19.
HuaH., XuJ., LinC.Use of cannula ileostomy to protect a low colorectal anastomosis in patients having pre-operative neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.Colorectal Dis2014; 16: O117–22.
20.
ZhouX., LinC., ChenW.Completely diverted tube ileostomy compared with loop ileostomy for protection of low colorectal anastomosis: a pilot study.Colorectal Dis2014; 16: O327–31.
21.
StroupD.F., BerlinJ.A., MortonS.C.Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology (MOOSE) group.JAMA2000; 283: 2008–12.
22.
WellsG.A., SheaB., O'ConnellD.The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing the Quality of Nonrandomized Studies in Meta-analyses. Available at: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/ Accessed November 29, 2014.
23.
Review Manager.RevMan (Computer Program). Version 5.3.Copenhagen, Denmark: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.
24.
HozoS.P., DjulbegovicB., HozoI.Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample.BMC Med Res Methodol2005; 5: 13.
25.
HigginsJ.P.T., GreenS.Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0 (Updated March, 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available at: http://www.cochrane-handbook.org. Accessed November 29, 2014.
26.
BasilicoV., GriffaB., RadaelliF.Anastomotic leakage following colorectal resection for cancer: how to define, manage and treat it.Minerva Chir2014; 69: 245–52.
27.
MontedoriA., CirocchiR., FarinellaE.Covering ileoor colostomy in anterior resection for rectal carcinoma.Cochrane Database Syst Rev2010; 5: CD006878.4: 8–10.
28.
RullierE., LaurentC., GarrelonJ.L.Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after resection of rectal cancer.Br J Surg1998; 85: 355–8.
29.
LaxamanaA., SolomonM.J., CohenZ.Long-term results of anterior resection using the double-stapling technique.Dis Colon Rectum1995; 38: 1246–50.
30.
ScottN., JacksonP., al-JaberiT.Total mesorectal excision and local recurrence: a study of tumor spread in the mesorectum distal to rectal cancer.Br J Surg1995; 82: 1031–3.
31.
JungS.H., YuC.S., ChoiP.W.Risk factors and oncologic impact of anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer surgery.Dis Colon Rectum2008; 51: 902–8.
32.
ChoiH.K., LawW.L., HoJ.W.Leakage after resection and intraperitoneal anastomosis for colorectal malignancy: analysis of risk factors.Dis Colon Rectum2006; 49: 1719–25.
33.
AlbertsJ.C., ParvaizA., MoranB.J.Predicting risk and diminishing the consequences of anastomotic dehiscence following rectal resection.Colorectal Dis2003; 5: 478–82.
34.
MartelG., Al SuhaibaniY., MolooH.Neoadjuvant therapy and anastomotic leak after tumor-specific mesorectal excision for rectal cancer.Dis Colon Rectum2008; 51: 1195–201.
35.
YangL., HuangX.E., ZhouJ.N.Risk assessment on anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer surgery: an analysis of 753 patients.Asian Pac J Cancer Prev2013; 14: 4447–53.
36.
ClarkD.D., HubayC.A.Tube cecostomy: an evaluation of 161 cases.Ann Surg1972; 175: 55–61.
37.
BenacciJ.C., WolffB.G.Cecostomy. Therapeutic indications and results.Dis Colon Rectum1995; 38: 530–4.
38.
PerrierG., PeillonC., LibergeN.Cecostomy is a useful surgical procedure: study of 113 colonic obstructions caused by cancer.Dis Colon Rectum2000; 43: 50–4.
39.
MaruschF., KochA., SchmidtU.Value of a protective stoma in low anterior resections for rectal cancer.Dis Colon Rectum2002; 45: 1164–71.
40.
PeetersK.C., TollenaarR.A., MarijnenC.A.Risk factors for anastomotic failure after total mesorectal excision of rectal cancer.Br J Surg2005; 92: 211–6.
41.
GiulianiD., WillemsenP., Van ElstF.A defunctioning stoma in the treatment of lower third rectal carcinoma.Acta Chir Belg2006; 106: 40–3.
42.
ChowA., TilneyH.S., ParaskevaP.The morbidity surrounding reversal of defunctioning ileostomies: a systematic review of 48 studies including 6,107 cases.Int J Colorectal Dis2009; 24: 711–23.
43.
Kaidar-PersonO., PersonB., WexnerS.D.Complications of construction and closure of temporary loop ileostomy.J Am Coll Surg2005; 201: 759–73.
44.
DabirianA., YaghmaeiF., RassouliM., TafreshiM.Z.Quality of life in ostomy patients: a qualitative study.Patient Prefer Adherence2010; 5: 1–5.
45.
WinsletM.C., CookeP., ObeidM.L.Transcaecal ileal diversion in the management of the ‘at risk’ distal colonic anastomosis.Int J Colorectal Dis1993; 8: 57–9.
OprescuC., BeuranM., NicolauA.E.Anastomotic dehiscence (AD) in colorectal cancer surgery: mechanical anastomosis versus manual anastomosis.J Med Life2012; 5: 444–51.
