Dataset Information

Ghost Ileostomy: Safe and Cost-effective Alternative to Ileostomy After Rectal Resection for Deep Infiltrating Endometriosis.

ABSTRACT:

Background/aim

Endometriosis infiltrating the rectum often requires resection with a protecting stoma. A ghost ileostomy (GI) is an alternative to prevent the psychological burden for the young women affected. The present study evaluated the safety and cost-effectiveness of the ghost ileostomy (GI) procedure in a group of patients after rectal resection for deep infiltrating endometriosis.

Patients and methods

The prospective controlled interventional trial was conducted in 54 consecutive patients with deep infiltrating endometriosis of the rectum. GI was considered after ultra-low resection with primary anastomosis, previous colorectal anastomosis, or pelvic redo surgery. Loop ileostomy (LI) was performed after simultaneous colpotomy with suture, only. Operating time, morbidity according to the Clavien-Dindo classification (CDC), duration of hospital stay, and patient satisfaction were obtained. Individual costs were estimated for the endometriosis procedure with or without a GI or LI, including stoma supply and closure expenses.

Results

Of the 54 patients, 27 received GI (50%), whereas 4 underwent LI (7%). The remaining 23 patients received no outlet (NO). The complication rate did not differ among the GI, LI, and NO groups. Two cases were re-operated and required a diverting stoma, one in the GI and the NO group each. The additional healthcare expenses for each patient receiving a LI averaged 6,000 €. The patients were very satisfied with the option of a GI.

Conclusion

GI is a cost-effective and safe alternative to LI after rectal resection for deep infiltrating endometriosis in cases where it is required. The individual costs per patient were reduced substantially, with a cumulative savings of 160,000 € in healthcare expenditure. Additionally, the method clearly lowers the psychological burden on the young women concerned.

SUBMITTER: Hernandez AV

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9087109 | biostudies-literature | 2022 May-Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Ghost Ileostomy: Safe and Cost-effective Alternative to Ileostomy After Rectal Resection for Deep Infiltrating Endometriosis.

Hernández Alberto Vega AV Otten Jakob J Christ Hildegard H Ulrici Christoph C Piriyev Elvin E Ludwig Sebastian S Rudroff Claudia C

In vivo (Athens, Greece) 20220501 3

<h4>Background/aim</h4>Endometriosis infiltrating the rectum often requires resection with a protecting stoma. A ghost ileostomy (GI) is an alternative to prevent the psychological burden for the young women affected. The present study evaluated the safety and cost-effectiveness of the ghost ileostomy (GI) procedure in a group of patients after rectal resection for deep infiltrating endometriosis.<h4>Patients and methods</h4>The prospective controlled interventional trial was conducted in 54 con ...[more]

PMID: 35478159

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionAnastomotic leakage is the most important complication in colorectal surgery occurring in up to 20% after low anterior rectal resection. Therefore, a diverting ileostomy is usually created during low anterior resection to protect the anastomosis or rather to diminish the consequences in case of anastomotic leakage. The so-called virtual or ghost ileostomy is a pre-stage ostomy that can be easily exteriorised, if anastomotic leakage is suspected, in order to avoid the severe consequences of anastomotic leakage. On the other hand, an actual ileostomy can be avoided in patients, who do not develop anastomotic leakage.Methods and analysisThe GHOST trial is a randomised controlled pilot trial comparing ghost ileostomy with conventional loop ileostomy in patients undergoing low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. After screening for eligibility and obtaining informed consent, a total of 60 adult patients are included in the trial. Patients are intraoperatively randomised to the trial groups in a 1:1 ratio after assuring that none of the intraoperative exclusion criteria are present. The main outcome parameter is the comprehensive complication index as a measure of safety. Further outcomes include specific complications, stoma-related complications, complications of ileostomy closure, frequency of transformation of ghost ileostomy into conventional ileostomy, frequency of terminal ostomy creation, proportion of patients with an ostomy at 6 months after index surgery, anorectal function (Wexner score) and quality of life assessed by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 and CR29 questionnaires. Follow-up for each individual patient will be 6 months.Ethics and disseminationThe GHOST trial has been approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of Heidelberg University (reference number S-694/2017). If the intervention proves to be safe, loop ileostomy could be spared in a large proportion of patients, thus also avoiding stoma-related complications and a second operation (ileostomy closure) with its inherent complications in these patients.Trial registration numberGerman Clinical Trials Registry (DRKS00013997); Universal Trial Number: U1111-1208-9742.

Project description:Background and objectivesAnterior rectal resection (ARR) represents one of the most frequently performed methods in colorectal surgery, mainly carried out for rectal cancer (RC) treatment. Defunctioning ileostomy (DI) has long been chosen as a method to "protect" colorectal or coloanal anastomosis after ARR. However, DI does not rule out risks of more or less serious complications. A proximal intra-abdominal closed-loop ileostomy, the so-called virtual/ghost ileostomy (VI/GI), could limit the number of DIs and the associated morbidity.Materials and methodsWe performed a systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyzes (PRISMA) guidelines. Meta-analysis was performed by use of RevMan [Computer program] Version 5.4.ResultsThe five included comparative studies (VI/GI or DI) covering an approximately 20-year study period (2008-2021). All included studies were observational ones and originated from European countries. Meta-analysis indicated VI/GI as significantly associated with lower short-term morbidity rates related to VI/GI or DI after primary surgery (RR: 0.21, 95% CI: 0.07-0.64, p = 0.006), fewer dehydration (RR: 0.17, 95% CI: 0.04-0.75, p = 0.02) and ileus episodes after primary surgery (RR: 0.20, 95% CI: 0.05-0.77, p = 0.02), fewer readmissions after primary surgery (RR: 0.17, 95% CI: 0.07-0.43, p = 0.0002) and readmissions after primary surgery plus stoma closure surgery (RR: 0.14, 95% CI: 0.06-0.30, p < 0.00001) than the DI group. On the contrary, no differences were identified in terms of AL after primary surgery, short-term morbidity after primary surgery, major complications (CD ≥ III) after primary surgery and length of hospital stay after primary surgery. Conclusions: Given the significant biases among meta-analyzed studies (small overall sample size and the small number of events analyzed, in particular), our results require careful interpretation. Further randomized, possibly multi-center trials may be of paramount importance in confirming our results.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Hospital costs associated with the treatment of rectal cancer are considerable and the formation of a temporary stoma accounts for additional costs. Results from the EASY trial showed that early closure of a temporary ileostomy was associated with significantly fewer postoperative complications but no difference in health-related quality of life up to 12 months after rectal resection. The aim of the present study was to perform a cost analysis within the framework of the EASY trial. METHODS:Early closure (8-13 days) of a temporary stoma was compared to late closure (> 12 weeks) in the randomized controlled trial EASY (NCT01287637). The study period and follow-up was 12 months after rectal resection. Inclusion of participants was made after index surgery. Exclusion criteria were diabetes mellitus, steroid treatment, signs of postoperative complications or anastomotic leakage. Clinical effectiveness and resource use were derived from the trial and unit costs from Swedish sources. Costs were calculated for the year 2016 and analysed from the perspective of the healthcare sector. RESULTS:Fifty-five patients underwent early closure, and 57 late closure in eight Swedish and Danish hospitals between 2011 and 2014. The difference in mean cost per patient was 4060 US dollar (95% confidence interval 1121; 6999, p value < 0.01) in favour of early closure. A sensitivity analysis, taking protocol-driven examinations into account, resulted in an overall difference in mean cost per patient of $3608, in favour of early closure (95% confidence interval 668; 6549, p value 0.02). The predominant cost factors were reoperations, readmissions and endoscopic examinations. CONCLUSIONS:The significant cost reduction in this study, together with results of safety and efficacy from the randomized controlled trial, supports the routine use of early closure of a temporary ileostomy after rectal resection for cancer in selected patients without signs of anastomotic leakage. CLINICAL TRIAL:Registered at clinicaltrials.gov, clinical trials identifier NCT01287637.

Project description:BackgroundPreventive ileostomy (PI) is conventionally performed to prevent anastomotic leakage (AL) after laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) for low rectal cancer; however, secondary surgery is required to remove the ostomy tube. We designed a new type of ostomy, transcecum catheterization ileostomy (TCI) to prevent AL. Its principle is similar to PI, but no secondary operation is needed. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of TCI in AL prevention.MethodsWe analyzed the data of patients who underwent LTME with low anastomosis in Chongqing University Cancer Hospital from October 2015 to August 2021. Patients were divided into three groups according to their choice: those who underwent TCI (TCI group), those who underwent PI (PI group), and those who undergo none (C group). Intra-operation situation, postoperative efficacy and safety indicators were compared between three groups.ResultsOut of the total 534 patients included, 171 underwent TCI, 156 underwent PI, and 207 underwent none. No statistically difference was noted in baseline characteristics between three groups (all P>0.05). Operation time was longer in TCI group and PI group than in C group (P<0.001). No difference was noted in intraoperative blood loss or the number of lymph nodes dissected (P=0.685 and P=0.153). Moreover, no difference was noted in the serum levels of immune cells on postoperative day 1, 3, and 7 (all P>0.05) or in the levels of serum C-reactive protein (CRP), procalcitonin (PCT), and interleukin 6 (IL-6; all P>0.05). No difference was noted in postoperative incision, pulmonary infection rates and intestinal obstruction incidence (P=0.530, P=0.971, and P=0.938). AL incidence and AL-related reoperation rates were lower in TCI or PI group (P=0.002 and P<0.001). The rate of anastomotic stricture was lower in TCI group than in the other two groups (P<0.001).ConclusionsTCI is effective to prevent AL when performed during LTME. But TCI cannot completely avoid AL. When AL occurs, TCI can reduce the degree of abdominal infection and the secondary surgical rate related AL. TCI presents an alternative option to PI, that does not require secondary operation. Therefore, TCI is safe and worthy of application.

Project description:IntroductionA defunctioning ileostomy is often formed during rectal cancer surgery to reduce the potentially fatal sequelae of anastomotic leak. Once the ileostomy is closed and bowel continuity restored, many patients can suffer poor bowel function, that is, low anterior resection syndrome (LARS). It has been suggested that delay to closure can increase incidence of LARS which is known to significantly reduce quality of life. Despite this, within the UK, time to closure of ileostomy is not subject to national targets within the National Health Service and delay to closure exceeds 18 months in one-third of patients. Clinical factors, surgeon and patient preference or service pressures may all impact time to closure, yet to date no study has investigated this. The aim of this UK-wide study is to assess time to ileostomy closure and identify reasons for delays.Methods and analysisA UK-wide multicentre prospective snapshot study, together with retrospective analysis of ileostomy closure through The Dukes' Club Research Collaborative including patients undergoing ileostomy closure in a 3-month period (April to June 2018) and all patients who underwent anterior resection and ileostomy formation over a historical 12-month period (2015). Time to closure and incidence of 'non-closure' will be calculated. Units will be surveyed to determine local clinical and management protocols and barriers to timely closure. Multivariate linear regression analysis will be used to determine factors significantly associated with delay to ileostomy closure.Ethics and disseminationStudy approved by the South West-Exeter Research Ethics Committee and the Health Research Authority. Study results will be submitted for presentation at international conferences and for publication in peer-reviewed journals. Results will be presented to and discussed with the patient and public representatives and relevant national bodies to facilitate the development of consensus guidelines on optimum treatment pathways.

Dataset Information

Ghost Ileostomy: Safe and Cost-effective Alternative to Ileostomy After Rectal Resection for Deep Infiltrating Endometriosis.

Background/aim

Patients and methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Ghost Ileostomy: Safe and Cost-effective Alternative to Ileostomy After Rectal Resection for Deep Infiltrating Endometriosis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets