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.