SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of postoperative complication rates between a novel endoluminal balloon-assisted drainage and diverting stoma after low rectal cancer

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Clinical and Translational Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Aim

To introduce a novel endo-luminal balloon-assisted drainage (EBAD) and compare postoperative complication rates between EBAD and diverting stoma (DS) groups.

Methods

The single center prospective non-random cohort study included a total of 163 patients in convenience patients with rectal cancer between January 2019 and January 2021. Out of 163 patients, 83 underwent DS and 80 EBAD. Primary endpoints were postoperative complication rate.

Results

The total number of complications was 28 in the DS group vs. 22 in the EBAD group (P = 0.388). 18 patients (21.7%) in the DS group and 14 patients (17.5%) in the EBAD group developed postoperative complication (P = 0.501). There were no differences identified for anastomotic leak rates between the two groups (P = 0.677). The rate of the pelvic abscess was lower in the EBAD group (1/80, 1.3%) than in the DS group (4/83, 4.8%) but with no statistical significance (P = 0.386). Compared with the DS group, the median operative time was shorter in the EBAD group (225 vs. 173.5 min, P < 0.001). Regarding incomplete small bowel obstruction, a higher prevalence was observed in the DS group compared to the EBAD group (7.2% vs 2.5%, P = 0.301). 7 patients (11.3%) in the DS group developed a para-stomal hernia, while no patient suffered a catheter-related complication. The median postoperative hospital stay was shorter in the DS groups than in the EBAD group (7 vs 8 days, P = 0.009). The median residence time of endo-luminal balloon-assisted drainage was 5.41 days. The median average and total volume of drainage were 51.57 ml/day and 255 ml, respectively.

Conclusion

EBAD is feasible and safe with similar postoperative complications when compared with a DS. EBAD may replace DS after rectum resection.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Germany)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Rullier E, et al. Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after resection of rectal cancer. Br J Surg. 1998;85(3):355–8. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2168.1998.00615.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Law WI, Chu KW, Ho JW, Chan CW. Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision. Am J Surg. 2000;179(2):92–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9610(00)00252-x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Peeters KC, et al. Risk factors for anastomotic failure after total mesorectal excision of rectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2005;92(2):211–6. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.4806.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Tortorelli AP, et al. Anastomotic leakage after anterior resection for rectal cancer with mesorectal excision: incidence, risk factors, and management. Am Surg. 2015;81(1):41–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Katayama H, et al. Extended Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: Japan Clinical Oncology Group postoperative complications criteria. Surg Today. 2016;46(6):668–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-015-1236-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 2017 HQIP (National Bowel Cancer Audit: Annual Report 2017.

  7. Snijders HS, et al. An increasing use of defunctioning stomas after low anterior resection for rectal cancer. Is this the way to go? Eur J Surg Oncol. 2013;39(7):715–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2013.03.025.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Rutegard M, Bostrom P, Haapamaki M, Matthiessen P, Rutegard J. Current use of diverting stoma in anterior resection for cancer: population-based cohort study of total and partial mesorectal excision. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2016;31(3):579–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-015-2465-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lewis P, Bartolo DC. Closure of loop ileostomy after restorative proctocolectomy. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1990;72(4):263–5.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Khoo RE, Cohen MM, Chapman GM, Jenken DA, Langevin JM. Loop ileostomy for temporary fecal diversion. Am J Surg. 1994;167(5):519–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9610(94)90249-6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Alves A, et al. Randomized clinical trial of early versus delayed temporary stoma closure after proctectomy. Br J Surg. 2008;95(6):693–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.6212.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Perez RO, et al. Loop ileostomy morbidity: timing of closure matters. Dis Colon Rectum. 2006;49(10):1539–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10350-006-0645-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Chow A, et al. The morbidity surrounding reversal of defunctioning ileostomies: a systematic review of 48 studies including 6,107 cases. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2009;24(6):711–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-009-0660-z.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Akesson O, Syk I, Lindmark G, Buchwald P. Morbidity related to defunctioning loop ileostomy in low anterior resection. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2012;27(12):1619–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-012-1490-y.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Tsunoda A, et al. Quality of life after low anterior resection and temporary loop ileostomy. Dis Colon Rectum. 2008;51(2):218–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10350-007-9101-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Mala T, Nesbakken A. Morbidity related to the use of a protective stoma in anterior resection for rectal cancer. Colorectal Dis. 2008;10(8):785–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-1318.2007.01456.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Giannakopoulos GF, et al. Morbidity and complications of protective loop ileostomy. Colorectal Dis. 2009;11(6):609–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-1318.2008.01690.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Mansfield SD, Jensen C, Phair AS, Kelly OT, Kelly SB. Complications of loop ileostomy closure: a retrospective cohort analysis of 123 patients. World J Surg. 2008;32(9):2101–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-008-9669-7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Veenhof AA, van der Peet DL, Meijerink WJ, Cuesta MA. Defunctioning stoma reduces symptomatic anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection of the rectum for cancer: a randomized multicenter trial. Ann Surg. 2008;247(4):718–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e31816a7493.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. David GG, et al. Loop ileostomy following anterior resection: is it really temporary? Colorectal Dis. 2010;12(5):428–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-1318.2009.01815.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Holmgren K, et al. High stoma prevalence and stoma reversal complications following anterior resection for rectal cancer: a population-based multicentre study. Colorectal Dis. 2017;19(12):1067–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.13771.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Montedori A, Cirocchi R, Farinella E, Sciannameo F, Abraha I. Covering ileo- or colostomy in anterior resection for rectal carcinoma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006878.pub2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Huser N, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the role of defunctioning stoma in low rectal cancer surgery. Ann Surg. 2008;248(1):52–60. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e318176bf65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Machado M, et al. Defunctioning stoma in low anterior resection with colonic pouch for rectal cancer: a comparison between two hospitals with a different policy. Dis Colon Rectum. 2002;45(7):940–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10350-004-6333-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Matthiessen P, Hallbook O, Andersson M, Rutegard J, Sjodahl R. Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after anterior resection of the rectum. Colorectal Dis. 2004;6(6):462–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-1318.2004.00657.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Denost Q, et al. To drain or not to drain infraperitoneal anastomosis after rectal excision for cancer: The GRECCAR 5 randomized trial. Ann Surg. 2017;265(3):474–80. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000001991.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Penna M, et al. Incidence and risk factors for anastomotic failure in 1594 patients treated by transanal total mesorectal excision: results from the international TaTME registry. Ann Surg. 2019;269(4):700–11. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002653.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Phatak UR, et al. Impact of ileostomy-related complications on the multidisciplinary treatment of rectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21(2):507–12. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-013-3287-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Ihnat P, et al. Diverting ileostomy in laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: high price of protection. Surg Endosc. 2016;30(11):4809–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-4811-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Gastinger I, et al. Protective defunctioning stoma in low anterior resection for rectal carcinoma. Br J Surg. 2005;92(9):1137–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.5045.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Thalheimer A, Bueter M, Kortuem M, Thiede A, Meyer D. Morbidity of temporary loop ileostomy in patients with colorectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2006;49(7):1011–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10350-006-0541-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Bonin E, et al. Diverting stoma-related complications following colorectal endometriosis surgery: a 163-patient cohort. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2019;232:46–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2018.11.008.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This project was supported by the grant from the Sun Yat-sen University Clinical Research 5010 Program (Grant No. 2016005).

Author information

Author notes

  1. W. Liang and H. Jie authors contributed equally to this study.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Colorectal Surgery, Guangdong Institute of Gastroenterology, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Colorectal and Pelvic Floor Diseases, The Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, 510655, Guangdong, People’s Republic of China

    W. Liang, H. Jie, Z. Zeng, S. Luo, Z. Liu, L. Huang & L. Kang

  2. Guangdong Institute of Gastroenterology, The Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, 510655, Guangdong, People’s Republic of China

    W. Liang, H. Jie, Z. Zeng, S. Luo, Z. Liu, L. Huang & L. Kang

  3. Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Colorectal and Pelvic Floor Diseases, The Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, 510655, Guangdong, People’s Republic of China

    W. Liang, H. Jie, Z. Zeng, S. Luo, Z. Liu, L. Huang & L. Kang

Authors
  1. W. Liang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. H. Jie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Z. Zeng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. S. Luo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Z. Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. L. Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. L. Kang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to L. Huang or L. Kang.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Drs. Wenfeng Liang, Haiqing Jie, Shuangling Luo, Ziwei Zeng, Zhihang Liu, Liang Huang and Liang Kang have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose. All authors are aware of and agree to the content of the paper and their being listed as an author on the paper.

Ethical Standards

The current study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University following rigorous review.

Informed consent

All patients provided written informed consent.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (3GP 6656 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liang, W., Jie, H., Zeng, Z. et al. Comparison of postoperative complication rates between a novel endoluminal balloon-assisted drainage and diverting stoma after low rectal cancer. Clin Transl Oncol 24, 1347–1353 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12094-021-02775-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12094-021-02775-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation