Objective To explore the application value of laparoscopic assisted ileostomy closure after prophylactic ileostomy.Methods A retrospective analysis was conducted on 63 cases of middle and low rectal cancer who received ileostomy closure after prophylactic ileostomy in natural orifice specimen extraction surgery(NOSES)from September 2017 to May 2023.Among them,31 cases underwent laparoscopic assisted ileostomy closure(observation group),and 32 cases underwent conventional open ileostomy closure(control group).The operative time,intraoperative blood loss,time to first ambulation,time to first flatus,time to first liquid diet,postoperative pain score,postoperative hospital stay time,and postoperative complications were compared between the two groups.Results All the 63 cases successfully underwent ileostomy closure.The observation group showed significantly better outcomes than the control group in operative time[(63.2±5.7)min vs.(93.5±4.7)min,t=-23.109,P=0.000],intraoperative blood loss[7.0(6.0,8.0)ml vs.22.5(21.0,24.0)ml,Z=-6.853,P=0.000],time to first ambulation[1.0(1.0,1.0)d vs.2.0(2.0,2.0)d,Z=-5.653,P=0.000],time to first flatus[1.0(1.0,2.0)d vs.2.0(2.0,2.0)d,Z=-5.304,P=0.000],time to first liquid diet[2.0(2.0,3.0)d vs.3.0(2.0,3.0)d,Z=-3.000,P=0.003],postoperative pain score[24 h:3.0(3.0,4.0)vs.4.0(3.0,4.0),Z=-4.501,P=0.000;48 h:2.0(2.0,2.0)vs.3.0(2.0,3.0),Z=-3.750,P=0.000;72 h:1.0(1.0,2.0)vs.2.0(2.0,2.0),Z=-2.996,P=0.003],and postoperative hospital stay[(6.8±1.6)dvs.(8.5±1.5)d,t=-4.297,P=0.000].The observation group had a lower postoperative incision infection rate than the control group[3.2％(1/31)vs.34.4％(11/32),x2=9.908,P=0.002],while no significant differences were observed in incision dehiscence,intestinal obstruction,or abdominal hemorrhage(P＞0.05).Conclusions For patients with middle and low rectal cancer who undergoing ileostomy closure after prophylactic ileostomy in NOSES,laparoscopic assisted ileostomy closure is safe and feasible.Compared with open surgery,it reduces incision infection rate,alleviates postoperative pain,shortens hospital stay,and promotes recovery.

Objective To explore the application value of laparoscopic assisted ileostomy closure after prophylactic ileostomy.Methods A retrospective analysis was conducted on 63 cases of middle and low rectal cancer who received ileostomy closure after prophylactic ileostomy in natural orifice specimen extraction surgery(NOSES)from September 2017 to May 2023.Among them,31 cases underwent laparoscopic assisted ileostomy closure(observation group),and 32 cases underwent conventional open ileostomy closure(control group).The operative time,intraoperative blood loss,time to first ambulation,time to first flatus,time to first liquid diet,postoperative pain score,postoperative hospital stay time,and postoperative complications were compared between the two groups.Results All the 63 cases successfully underwent ileostomy closure.The observation group showed significantly better outcomes than the control group in operative time[(63.2±5.7)min vs.(93.5±4.7)min,t=-23.109,P=0.000],intraoperative blood loss[7.0(6.0,8.0)ml vs.22.5(21.0,24.0)ml,Z=-6.853,P=0.000],time to first ambulation[1.0(1.0,1.0)d vs.2.0(2.0,2.0)d,Z=-5.653,P=0.000],time to first flatus[1.0(1.0,2.0)d vs.2.0(2.0,2.0)d,Z=-5.304,P=0.000],time to first liquid diet[2.0(2.0,3.0)d vs.3.0(2.0,3.0)d,Z=-3.000,P=0.003],postoperative pain score[24 h:3.0(3.0,4.0)vs.4.0(3.0,4.0),Z=-4.501,P=0.000;48 h:2.0(2.0,2.0)vs.3.0(2.0,3.0),Z=-3.750,P=0.000;72 h:1.0(1.0,2.0)vs.2.0(2.0,2.0),Z=-2.996,P=0.003],and postoperative hospital stay[(6.8±1.6)dvs.(8.5±1.5)d,t=-4.297,P=0.000].The observation group had a lower postoperative incision infection rate than the control group[3.2％(1/31)vs.34.4％(11/32),x2=9.908,P=0.002],while no significant differences were observed in incision dehiscence,intestinal obstruction,or abdominal hemorrhage(P＞0.05).Conclusions For patients with middle and low rectal cancer who undergoing ileostomy closure after prophylactic ileostomy in NOSES,laparoscopic assisted ileostomy closure is safe and feasible.Compared with open surgery,it reduces incision infection rate,alleviates postoperative pain,shortens hospital stay,and promotes recovery.

Objective To explore the application value of modified prophylactic ileostomy in natural orifice specimen extraction surgery(NOSES)for patients with mid-low rectal cancer.Methods We retrospectively analyzed 63 patients who received prophylactic ileostomy in NOSES for mid-low rectal cancer in our hospital from September 2017 to May 2023.The patients were divided into the observation group(those who received modified ileostomy,n=31)and the control group(those who received conventional loop ileostomy,n=32)according to different ostomy methods.The operation time of ostomy,operation time of ostomy reversal surgery,early-stage complications(stoma leakage,peristomal dermatitis,stoma pain,peristomal trocar hole infection,stoma bleeding,stoma ischaemic necrosis,stoma oedema,peristoma skin-mucosal separation and stoma proximal bowel obstruction)and long-stage complications(stoma stenosis,stoma retraction,stoma prolapse,parastomal hernia),tumor recurrence and death of the two groups were compared and analyzed.Results Both prophylactic ileostomy and ostomy reversal surgery were successfully completed in all the 63 cases.The operation time of ostomy in the observation group was 7(6-8)min,which was significantly shorter than that of 23(21-24)min in the control group(Z=-6.853,P=0.000),and the operation time of ostomy reversal surgery in the observation group was(63.2±5.7)min,which was significantly shorter than(93.5±4.7)min in the control group(t=-23.109,P=0.000).Neither stoma bleeding nor stoma ischaemic necrosis were observed in both groups.The incidence of stoma pain in the observation group was lower than that in the control group[6.4％(2/31)vs.65.6％(21/32),x2=21.766,P=0.000].The incidence of peristomal incision infection in the observation group was lower than that in the control group[0％(0/31)vs.53.1％(17/32),P=0.000].There was no stoma stenosis in both groups.There were 3 cases of parastomal hernia,1 case in the observation group and 2 cases in the control group,the difference of the incidence being not statistically significant(P=1.000).There was 1 case of stoma retraction and 1 case of stoma prolapse in the control group.All the 5 cases with complications received prompt treatment in the second ostomy reversal surgery.Follow-up visits for 6-60 months in the 63 cases showed no tumor recurrence or death.Conclusion Modified prophylactic ileostomy in NOSES for patients with mid-low rectal cancer is safe,feasible,and easy to operate,having certain practicality and promotion value.