Application of an Enhanced Recovery Pathway for Ileostomy Closure: a Case-control Trial with Surprising Results

Overview

Journal Tech Coloproctol

Date 2018 May 4

PMID 29721637

Citations 11

Authors

J Slieker

M Hubner

V Addor

C Duvoisin

N Demartines

D Hahnloser

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols have been widely validated in colorectal surgery; however, few data exist on loop ileostomy closure. The aim of this study was to compare clinical outcomes before and after introduction of ERAS for loop ileostomy closure.

Methods: Data on outcomes after loop ileostomy closure were retrospectively collected before ERAS was applied at our department (control group). These results were compared to results of patients undergoing loop ileostomy closure within the original colorectal ERAS pathway (ERAS 1 group); after analysis of these results, adaptations were made to the ERAS pathway regarding the postoperative diet, and this second category of patients was analyzed (ERAS 2 group).

Results: Forty-eight patients in the control group were compared to 46 ERAS 1 and 69 ERAS 2 patients. First stool was significantly faster in ERAS 2 group versus control and ERAS 1 group [median 1 (range 1-2) days vs 2 (2-3) days p value 0.01]. The incidence of vomiting increased from 26% in the control group to 45% in ERAS 1 group, and then decreased to 29% in the ERAS 2 group (p value 0.41). Length of stay was significantly shorter during the ERAS 2 protocol: median 4 (range 3-6) days versus 5 (4-8) days in the control group (p value < 0.01).

Conclusions: After application of the 'colorectal' ERAS pathway to loop ileostomy closure, results were initially not improved. Minor corrections were sufficient to avoid increased incidence of vomiting and to allow for reduced hospital stay. Uncritical extrapolation of an ERAS colorectal protocol to other types of surgery should be monitored and needs audit for corrections.

Citing Articles

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) in stoma reversal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Pimentel T, Souza D, Zuniga I, Faveri M, Canfild J, Pauperio P Updates Surg. 2025; .

PMID: 39799533 DOI: 10.1007/s13304-025-02092-6.

Current approach to loop ileostomy closure: a nationwide survey on behalf of the Italian Society of ColoRectal Surgery (SICCR).

Peltrini R, Ferrara F, Parini D, Pacella D, Vitiello A, Scognamillo F Updates Surg. 2024; 77(1):97-106.

PMID: 39520612 DOI: 10.1007/s13304-024-02033-9.

Efferent limb stimulation prior to loop ileostomy closure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Lloyd A, Hardy N, Jordan P, Ryan E, Whelan M, Clancy C Tech Coloproctol. 2023; 28(1):15.

PMID: 38095756 DOI: 10.1007/s10151-023-02875-2.

Comparison of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Pathway Versus Standard Care in Patients Undergoing Elective Stoma Reversal Surgery- A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Madan S, Sureshkumar S, Anandhi A, Gurushankari B, Keerthi A, Palanivel C J Gastrointest Surg. 2023; 27(11):2667-2675.

PMID: 37620661 DOI: 10.1007/s11605-023-05803-9.

Bowel stimulation before loop ileostomy closure to reduce postoperative ileus: a multicenter, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial.

Garfinkle R, Demian M, Sabboobeh S, Moon J, Hulme-Moir M, Liberman A Surg Endosc. 2022; 37(5):3934-3943.

PMID: 35984521 PMC: 9390101. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-022-09510-5.

References

Berger N, Chou R, Toy E, Ludwig K, Ridolfi T, Peterson C . Loop Ileostomy Closure as an Overnight Procedure: Institutional Comparison With the National Surgical Quality Improvement Project Data Set. Dis Colon Rectum. 2017; 60(8):852-859. DOI: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000000793. View

Labgaa I, Jarrar G, Joliat G, Allemann P, Gander S, Blanc C . Implementation of Enhanced Recovery (ERAS) in Colorectal Surgery Has a Positive Impact on Non-ERAS Liver Surgery Patients. World J Surg. 2015; 40(5):1082-91. DOI: 10.1007/s00268-015-3363-3. View

Hollenbeck B, Miller D, Taub D, Dunn R, Khuri S, Henderson W . Identifying risk factors for potentially avoidable complications following radical cystectomy. J Urol. 2005; 174(4 Pt 1):1231-7. DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000173923.35338.99. View

Parekh D, Clark T, OConnor J, Jung C, Chang S, Cookson M . Orthotopic neobladder following radical cystectomy in patients with high perioperative risk and co-morbid medical conditions. J Urol. 2002; 168(6):2454-6. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)64166-3. View

DHaeninck A, Wolthuis A, Penninckx F, DHondt M, DHoore A . Morbidity after closure of a defunctioning loop ileostomy. Acta Chir Belg. 2011; 111(3):136-41. DOI: 10.1080/00015458.2011.11680724. View

Moghadamyeghaneh Z, Hwang G, Hanna M, Phelan M, Carmichael J, Mills S . Risk factors for prolonged ileus following colon surgery. Surg Endosc. 2015; 30(2):603-609. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-015-4247-1. View

Gustafsson U, Scott M, Schwenk W, Demartines N, Roulin D, Francis N . Guidelines for perioperative care in elective colonic surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS(®)) Society recommendations. World J Surg. 2012; 37(2):259-84. DOI: 10.1007/s00268-012-1772-0. View

Greco M, Capretti G, Beretta L, Gemma M, Pecorelli N, Braga M . Enhanced recovery program in colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. World J Surg. 2013; 38(6):1531-41. DOI: 10.1007/s00268-013-2416-8. View

Danna B, Wood E, Baack Kukreja J, Shah J . The Future of Enhanced Recovery for Radical Cystectomy: Current Evidence, Barriers to Adoption, and the Next Steps. Urology. 2016; 96:62-68. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2016.04.038. View

10.

Nguyen D, Maithel S, Nguyen E, Bechtold M . Does alvimopan enhance return of bowel function in laparoscopic gastrointestinal surgery? A meta-analysis. Ann Gastroenterol. 2015; 28(4):475-80. PMC: 4585395. View

11.

Soulie M, Straub M, Game X, Seguin P, de Petriconi R, Plante P . A multicenter study of the morbidity of radical cystectomy in select elderly patients with bladder cancer. J Urol. 2002; 167(3):1325-8. View

12.

Adam M, Lee L, Kim J, Shenoi M, Mallipeddi M, Aziz H . Alvimopan Provides Additional Improvement in Outcomes and Cost Savings in Enhanced Recovery Colorectal Surgery. Ann Surg. 2015; 264(1):141-6. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001428. View

13.

Kummer A, Slieker J, Grass F, Hahnloser D, Demartines N, Hubner M . Enhanced Recovery Pathway for Right and Left Colectomy: Comparison of Functional Recovery. World J Surg. 2016; 40(10):2519-27. DOI: 10.1007/s00268-016-3563-5. View

14.

Bhalla A, Peacock O, Tierney G, Tou S, Hurst N, Speake W . Day-case closure of ileostomy: feasible, safe and efficient. Colorectal Dis. 2015; 17(9):820-3. DOI: 10.1111/codi.12961. View

15.

Svatek R, Fisher M, Williams M, Matin S, Kamat A, Grossman H . Age and body mass index are independent risk factors for the development of postoperative paralytic ileus after radical cystectomy. Urology. 2010; 76(6):1419-24. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2010.02.053. View

16.

Cookson M, Chang S, Wells N, Parekh D, Smith Jr J . Complications of radical cystectomy for nonmuscle invasive disease: comparison with muscle invasive disease. J Urol. 2002; 169(1):101-4. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)64045-1. View

17.

Roulin D, Donadini A, Gander S, Griesser A, Blanc C, Hubner M . Cost-effectiveness of the implementation of an enhanced recovery protocol for colorectal surgery. Br J Surg. 2013; 100(8):1108-14. DOI: 10.1002/bjs.9184. View

18.

Lee K, Freiha F, Presti Jr J, Gill H . Gender differences in radical cystectomy: complications and blood loss. Urology. 2004; 63(6):1095-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2004.01.029. View

19.

Markides G, Wijetunga I, Brown S, Anwar S . Meta-analysis of handsewn versus stapled reversal of loop ileostomy. ANZ J Surg. 2014; 85(4):217-24. DOI: 10.1111/ans.12684. View

20.

Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P . Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004; 240(2):205-13. PMC: 1360123. DOI: 10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae. View