Abstract
Aim:
Delay to closure of ileostomy following anterior resection for rectal cancer may impair postoperative bowel function and quality of life. We analysed time to ileostomy closure across the UK and investigated factors delaying closure.
Methods:
For the retrospective cohort we assessed time to closure and incidence of non-closure for patients who underwent anterior resection with defunctioning ileostomy during 2015. Multivariate linear/Cox regression analyses were performed. For the prospective cohort we captured patients undergoing ileostomy closure during a 3-month period in 2018 to validate retrospective findings.
Results:
The retrospective cohort involved 788 patients of whom 669 (84.9%) had bowel continuity restored, median time to closure 259 days. Recognized factors associated with delay and risk of non-closure included anastomotic leak (hazard ratio [HR] 3.65, 2.61–5.08), chemotherapy (HR 2.62, 2.17–3.15) and cancer progression (HR 2.05, 1.62–2.58). Crucially, specific aspects of the surgical pathway were associated with time to closure; for example, waiting list entry prior to outpatient clinic review/imaging was associated with an estimated 133-day shorter interval to closure (P < 0.001). In the prospective cohort 288 patients underwent closure, at a median of 271 days. Chemotherapy use and cancer progression were associated with delay to closure while listing for surgery prior to clinic and imaging was associated with an estimated shorter interval to closure of 168 days (P = 0.008).
Conclusions:
Delays to closure of ileostomy are common in the UK. Listing patients for surgery only after follow-up outpatient appointment, imaging or chemotherapy delays closure. Findings will inform consensus guidelines towards an optimum treatment pathway to reduce delay and improve post-closure quality of life.
Delay to closure of ileostomy following anterior resection for rectal cancer may impair postoperative bowel function and quality of life. We analysed time to ileostomy closure across the UK and investigated factors delaying closure.
Methods:
For the retrospective cohort we assessed time to closure and incidence of non-closure for patients who underwent anterior resection with defunctioning ileostomy during 2015. Multivariate linear/Cox regression analyses were performed. For the prospective cohort we captured patients undergoing ileostomy closure during a 3-month period in 2018 to validate retrospective findings.
Results:
The retrospective cohort involved 788 patients of whom 669 (84.9%) had bowel continuity restored, median time to closure 259 days. Recognized factors associated with delay and risk of non-closure included anastomotic leak (hazard ratio [HR] 3.65, 2.61–5.08), chemotherapy (HR 2.62, 2.17–3.15) and cancer progression (HR 2.05, 1.62–2.58). Crucially, specific aspects of the surgical pathway were associated with time to closure; for example, waiting list entry prior to outpatient clinic review/imaging was associated with an estimated 133-day shorter interval to closure (P < 0.001). In the prospective cohort 288 patients underwent closure, at a median of 271 days. Chemotherapy use and cancer progression were associated with delay to closure while listing for surgery prior to clinic and imaging was associated with an estimated shorter interval to closure of 168 days (P = 0.008).
Conclusions:
Delays to closure of ileostomy are common in the UK. Listing patients for surgery only after follow-up outpatient appointment, imaging or chemotherapy delays closure. Findings will inform consensus guidelines towards an optimum treatment pathway to reduce delay and improve post-closure quality of life.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 1109-1119 |
Number of pages | 11 |
Journal | Colorectal Disease |
Volume | 23 |
Issue number | 5 |
Early online date | 16 Jan 2021 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 10 May 2021 |
Bibliographical note
Publisher Copyright:© 2021 The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.