Comparison of protective ileostomy and transverse colostomy through specimen extraction auxiliary incision following laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer
10.3760/cma.j.issn.1671-0274.2019.10.011
- VernacularTitle: 回肠造口与横结肠造口在经标本取出辅助切口行保护性肠造口术中应用的比较分析
- Author:
Xin WU
1
;
Guole LIN
;
Yi XIAO
;
Bin WU
;
Jiaolin ZHOU
;
Huizhong QIU
Author Information
1. Department of General Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100730, China
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Rectal neoplasms;
Laparoscope;
Loop ostomy;
Loop transverse colostomy;
Auxiliary incision
- From:
Chinese Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery
2019;22(10):961-965
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To introduce a new technique of protective ostomy using the specimen extraction auxiliary incision following laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer, and to compare the pros and cons of loop ileostomy (LI) and loop transverse colostomy (LTC).
Methods:A retrospective cohort study was performed. The data of patients who underwent laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer and ostomy using the auxiliary incision in Peking Union Medical College Hospital from January 2010 to December 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. Inclusion criteria: (1) patient underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy before operation; (2) patient was classified as tumor stage II or III; (3) patient was followed up and underwent stoma closure at our center; (4) ostomy was performed through specimen extraction incision. Patients with multiple gastrointestinal carcinomas or inflammatory bowel disease were excluded. Two hundred and eight patients were included in the study and divided into the LI group (n=86) and LTC group (n=122). The operation parameters and postoperative complications were compared between the two groups.
Results:There were 135 males and 73 females (1.85∶1.00). Mean age of the 208 patients was (59.6±11.6) years (range 29-85 years). There were no significant differences between LI and LTC groups in baseline data (all P>0.05). All of the patients completed surgery successfully. The severe complication rate after ostomy was 2.9% (6/208). In the fecal diversion period, LI group showed significantly faster defecation [(1.6±1.0) days vs. (2.2±1.9) days, t=-2.918, P=0.004] and lower incidence of parastomal hernia [8.1% (7/86) vs. 19.7% (24/122), χ2=5.290, P=0.021], but higher incidence of peristomal dermatitis [18.6% (16/86) vs. 4.9% (6/122), χ2=9.990, P=0.002] as compared to LTC group. The incidence of renal insufficiency was lower in LTC group, though the difference was not significant [4.9% (6/122) vs. 10.5% (9/86), χ2=2.320, P=0.128]. The severe complication rate after stoma closure was 1.9% (4/208). In the stoma closure period, a significantly higher incidence of wound infection was noted in LTC group [18.0% (22/122) vs. 4.7% (4/86), χ2=8.258, P=0.004]. There were no significant differences between the two groups in the incidence of anastomotic leakage, stenosis, and incisional hernia (all P>0.05). All complications were improved after treatment.
Conclusions:Both LI and LTC through auxiliary incision following laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer are safe and feasible. LTC is an optional method for those patients with sensitive skin.
