TY - JOUR
T1 - Current approach to loop ileostomy closure
T2 - a nationwide survey on behalf of the Italian Society of ColoRectal Surgery (SICCR)
AU - Peltrini, Roberto
AU - Ferrara, Francesco
AU - Parini, Dario
AU - Pacella, Daniela
AU - Vitiello, Antonio
AU - Scognamillo, Fabrizio
AU - Pilone, Vincenzo
AU - Pietroletti, Renato
AU - De Nardi, Paola
AU - Bellato, Vittoria
AU - Mosca, Vinicio
AU - Adamo, Vincenzo
AU - Simone, Veronica De
AU - silvestri, Vania
AU - Ripetti, Valter
AU - Lantone, Valerio
AU - Rampulla, Valentina
AU - Miacci, Valentina
AU - Grossi, Ugo
AU - Violante, Tommaso
AU - Fontana, Tommaso
AU - Cioppa, Tommaso
AU - Bruno, Tommaso
AU - Ascanelli, Simona
AU - Guerriero, Silvio
AU - Quaresima, Silvia
AU - Sforza, Sergio
AU - Errico, Sara
AU - Incardona, Salvatore
AU - Guarino, Salvatore
AU - Saverio, Salomone
AU - Perinotti, Roberto
AU - Tutino, Roberta
AU - Longhin, Roberta
AU - Laforgia, Rita
AU - Costi, Renato
AU - Dico, Rea Lo
AU - Lombardi, Raffaele
AU - Luca, Raffaele
AU - Sallustio, Pierluca
AU - Anoldo, Pietro
AU - Lascio, Pierpaolo Di
AU - Marinello, Peter
AU - Marsanic, Patrizia
AU - Ascenzi, Pasquale
AU - Massucco, Paolo
AU - Baccari, Paolo
AU - Meroni, Paola
AU - Campennì, Paola
AU - Pellino, Gianluca
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© Italian Society of Surgery (SIC) 2024.
PY - 2024/11/9
Y1 - 2024/11/9
N2 - Compared to standardized minimally invasive colorectal procedures, there is considerable perioperative heterogeneity in loop ileostomy reversal. This study aimed to investigate the current perioperative practice and technical variations of loop ileostomy reversal following rectal cancer surgery. A nationwide online survey was conducted among members of the Italian Society of ColoRectal Surgery (SICCR). A link to the questionnaire was sent via mail. The survey consisted of 31 questions concerning the main procedural steps and application of the ERAS protocol after loop ileostomy reversal. Overall, 219 participants completed the survey. One respondent in four used a combination of water-soluble contrast studies (WSCS) and digital rectal examination to assess the integrity of the anastomosis before ileostomy closure. Conversely, 17.8% of them used either only WSCS or only endoscopy. Surgeons routinely perform hand-sewn or stapled anastomoses in 45.2% and 54.8% of the cases, respectively. Side-to-side antiperistaltic stapled anastomosis was the most performed anastomosis (36%). Most surgeons declared that they have never used prostheses for abdominal wall closure (64%), whereas 35% preferred retromuscular mesh placement in selected cases only. Forty-six respondents (66.7%) reported using interrupted stitches for skin closure, while 65 (29.7%) a purse-string suture. Furthermore, skin approximation at the stoma site using open methods was significantly more common among surgeons with greater experience in ileostomy reversal (p = 0.031). Overall, a good compliance with the ERAS protocol was found. However, colorectal surgeons were significantly more likely to follow the ERAS pathway than general surgeons (p < 0.05). Surgeons use different anastomotic techniques for ileostomy reversal after rectal cancer surgery. Based on current evidence, purse-string skin closure and ERAS pathway should be implemented, while the role of mesh prophylactic strategy needs to be explored further.
AB - Compared to standardized minimally invasive colorectal procedures, there is considerable perioperative heterogeneity in loop ileostomy reversal. This study aimed to investigate the current perioperative practice and technical variations of loop ileostomy reversal following rectal cancer surgery. A nationwide online survey was conducted among members of the Italian Society of ColoRectal Surgery (SICCR). A link to the questionnaire was sent via mail. The survey consisted of 31 questions concerning the main procedural steps and application of the ERAS protocol after loop ileostomy reversal. Overall, 219 participants completed the survey. One respondent in four used a combination of water-soluble contrast studies (WSCS) and digital rectal examination to assess the integrity of the anastomosis before ileostomy closure. Conversely, 17.8% of them used either only WSCS or only endoscopy. Surgeons routinely perform hand-sewn or stapled anastomoses in 45.2% and 54.8% of the cases, respectively. Side-to-side antiperistaltic stapled anastomosis was the most performed anastomosis (36%). Most surgeons declared that they have never used prostheses for abdominal wall closure (64%), whereas 35% preferred retromuscular mesh placement in selected cases only. Forty-six respondents (66.7%) reported using interrupted stitches for skin closure, while 65 (29.7%) a purse-string suture. Furthermore, skin approximation at the stoma site using open methods was significantly more common among surgeons with greater experience in ileostomy reversal (p = 0.031). Overall, a good compliance with the ERAS protocol was found. However, colorectal surgeons were significantly more likely to follow the ERAS pathway than general surgeons (p < 0.05). Surgeons use different anastomotic techniques for ileostomy reversal after rectal cancer surgery. Based on current evidence, purse-string skin closure and ERAS pathway should be implemented, while the role of mesh prophylactic strategy needs to be explored further.
KW - Anastomosis
KW - ERAS protocol
KW - Ileostomy closure
KW - Purse string suture
KW - Stoma reversal
KW - Survey
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85208801427&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - https://www.mendeley.com/catalogue/abc818de-566f-31f9-8e68-4c897b35f53f/
U2 - 10.1007/s13304-024-02033-9
DO - 10.1007/s13304-024-02033-9
M3 - Article
C2 - 39520612
AN - SCOPUS:85208801427
SN - 2038-131X
VL - 77
SP - 97
EP - 106
JO - Updates in Surgery
JF - Updates in Surgery
IS - 1
M1 - e34
ER -