Retrospective Study
Copyright ©2014 Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
World J Gastrointest Surg. Sep 27, 2014; 6(9): 169-174
Published online Sep 27, 2014. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v6.i9.169
Increased postoperative complications after protective ileostomy closure delay: An institutional study
Ines Rubio-Perez, Miguel Leon, Daniel Pastor, Joaquin Diaz Dominguez, Ramon Cantero
Ines Rubio-Perez, Miguel Leon, Daniel Pastor, Joaquin Diaz Dominguez, Ramon Cantero, General and Digestive Surgery Department, La Paz University Hospital, 28046 Madrid, Spain
Author contributions: Rubio-Perez I, Leon M, Diaz Dominguez J and Cantero R designed the study and performed the research; Pastor D contributed to retrieve and analyze data; Rubio-Perez I and Leon M wrote the paper; all authors critically reviewed and accepted the final version.
Correspondence to: Ines Rubio-Perez, MD, General and Digestive Surgery Department, La Paz University Hospital, Pso. Castellana 261, 28046 Madrid, Spain. dr.inesrubio@gmail.com
Telephone: +34-91-7277531 Fax: +34-91-2071064
Received: June 13, 2014
Revised: July 8, 2014
Accepted: August 27, 2014
Published online: September 27, 2014
Processing time: 108 Days and 5.6 Hours
Abstract

AIM: To study the morbidity and complications associated to ileostomy reversal in colorectal surgery patients, and if these are related to the time of closure.

METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 93 patients, who had undergone elective ileostomy closure between 2009 and 2013 was performed. Demographic, clinical and surgical variables were reviewed for analysis. All complications were recorded, and classified according to the Clavien-Dindo Classification. Statistical univariate and multivariate analysis was performed, setting a P value of 0.05 for significance.

RESULTS: The patients had a mean age of 60.3 years, 58% male. The main procedure for ileostomy creation was rectal cancer (56%), and 37% had received preoperative chemo-radiotherapy. The average delay from creation to closure of the ileostomy was 10.3 mo. Postoperative complications occurred in 40% of the patients, with 1% mortality. The most frequent were ileus (13%) and wound infection (13%). Pseudomembranous colitis appeared in 4%. Increased postoperative complications were associated with delay in ileostomy closure (P = 0.041). Male patients had more complications (P = 0.042), mainly wound infections (P = 0.007). Pseudomembranous colitis was also associated with the delay in ileostomy closure (P = 0.003). End-to-end intestinal anastomosis without resection was significantly associated with postoperative ileus (P = 0.037).

CONCLUSION: Although closure of a protective ileostomy is a fairly common surgical procedure, it has a high rate of complications, and this must be taken into account when the indication is made. The delay in stoma closure can increase the rate of complications in general, and specifically wound infections and colitis.

Keywords: Protective ileostomy; Stomas; Stoma-related complications; Surgical infections; Colorectal surgery

Core tip: Protective ileostomies are widely used by surgeons for the protection of anastomoses, but they imply a second intervention for reversal. Despite being considered a minor intervention, ileostomy reversal does not lack complications. Adjuvant treatment, complications from the first intervention, or low-priority consideration can delay the closure of the stoma. In our study, we reviewed all complications following ileostomy reversal and found they were considerably high (40%), and increased as did the time (in months) until closure (P = 0.041). In multivariate analysis, male patients had more complications (P = 0.042), mainly wound infections (P = 0.007). Pseudomembranous colitis was also associated with the delay in ileostomy closure (P = 0.003).