Major renal morbidity following elective rectal cancer resection by the type of diverting ostomy
- PMID: 36237178
- DOI: 10.1111/codi.16375
Major renal morbidity following elective rectal cancer resection by the type of diverting ostomy
Abstract
Aim: Patients with rectal cancer often undergo faecal diversion, yet the existing literature cursorily reports renal sequelae by the type of ostomy. We aimed to determine whether the presence of an ileostomy or colostomy was associated with postoperative renal morbidity.
Methods: We identified patients with rectal cancer undergoing elective resection with primary anastomosis without diversion, with an ileostomy and with a colostomy by 21 possible procedures in the colectomy- and proctectomy-specific National Surgical Quality Improvement Program files. The odds of major renal events (renal failure [dialysis initiated] or progressive renal insufficiency [>2 mg/dl increase in creatinine without dialysis]), progressive renal insufficiency alone and readmissions were assessed using propensity score weighting and logistic regression.
Results: Of 15 075 patients (63.7% Stage II-III, 85.7% creatinine values obtained ≤30 days preoperatively), 37.7% were not diverted, 39.5% had an ileostomy and 22.9% a colostomy. Compared to non-diverted patients, diversion was associated with major renal events (ileostomy, odds ratio [OR] 2.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.6-2.9; colostomy, OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.3-2.5), progressive renal insufficiency (ileostomy, OR 2.5, 95% CI 1.7-3.5; colostomy, OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.4-2.9), readmissions for renal failure (ileostomy, OR 3.2, 95% CI 2.1-5.0; colostomy, OR 2.5, 95% CI 1.6-4.1) and readmissions for fluid/electrolyte abnormalities (ileostomy, OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.6-3.3; colostomy, OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.2-2.6).
Conclusion: Diverting ostomies after elective rectal cancer resection are strongly associated with renal morbidity. The decision to divert is complex, and it is unclear whether select patients may benefit from a colostomy from a renal perspective.
Keywords: AKI; NSQIP; ostomy; rectal cancer; renal failure.
© 2022 Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.
References
REFERENCES
-
- 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;(5):CD006878. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006878.pub2
-
- Gooszen AW, Geelkerken RH, Hermans J, Lagaay MB, Gooszen HG. Quality of life with a temporary stoma: ileostomy vs. colostomy. Dis Colon Rectum. 2000;43(5):650-5. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02235581
-
- Rullier E, Le Toux N, Laurent C, Garrelon JL, Parneix M, Saric J. Loop ileostomy versus loop colostomy for defunctioning low anastomoses during rectal cancer surgery. World J Surg. 2001;25(3):274-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002680020091
-
- Sakai Y, Nelson H, Larson D, Maidl L, Young-Fadok T, Ilstrup D. Temporary transverse colostomy vs loop ileostomy in diversion: a case-matched study. Arch Surg. 2001;136(3):338-42. https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.136.3.338
-
- Davis BR, Valente MA, Goldberg J, Lightner AL, Feingold DL, Paquette IM, et al. The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons clinical practice guidelines for ostomy surgery. Dis Colon Rectum. 2022;65(10):1173-90. https://doi.org/10.1097/DCR.0000000000002498
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
