Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Mar 23:13:100161.
doi: 10.1016/j.sipas.2023.100161. eCollection 2023 Jun.

Laparoscopic versus open loop ileostomy reversal: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Tyler McKechnie  1 , Léa Tessier  2 , Tharani Anpalagan  2 , Megan Chu  2 , Yung Lee  1 , Kathleen Logie  1 , Aristithes Doumouras  1   2   3 , Nalin Amin  1   2   3 , Dennis Hong  1   2   3 , Cagla Eskicioglu  1   2   3
Affiliations

Laparoscopic versus open loop ileostomy reversal: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Tyler McKechnie et al. Surg Pract Sci. .

Abstract

Background: Loop ileostomies (LIs) are used for temporary fecal diversion to protect downstream colorectal anastomoses. Standard operative approach for LI reversal has been through an open technique. Recently, laparoscopic LI reversal has been employed and studied. The aim of this systematic review was to compare laparoscopic and open LI reversal.

Methods: Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL were systematically searched. Articles were included if they compared rate of postoperative morbidity and/or length of stay (LOS) in patients undergoing laparoscopic or open LI reversal. Pairwise meta-analyses using inverse variance random effects was performed. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evidence (GRADE) approach was conducted to assess quality of evidence.

Results: From 410 citations, four observational studies with 213 patients undergoing laparoscopic LI reversal and 176 patients undergoing open LI reversal met inclusion. Patients in the laparoscopic group had significantly shorter LOS (MD -0.39, 95%CI -0.73 to -0.04, p = 0.03). Laparoscopic and open LI reversal were comparable in postoperative morbidity, aside from a decrease of superficial surgical site infection (sSSI) with the use of laparoscopy (OR 0.22, 95%CI 0.07 to 0.71, p = 0.01). Operative time was not significantly different between groups (MD 11.91, 95%CI -1.87 to 25.70, p = 0.09). The GRADE quality of evidence was low to very low.

Conclusions: This review presents low quality evidence that laparoscopic LI reversal is a feasible approach that may reduce postoperative LOS and sSSI compared to open LI reversal without increasing operative time. Future prospective comparative studies are required to confirm the findings of the present review.

Keywords: Bowel resection; Colorectal surgery; Laparoscopy; Loop Ileostomy; Loop ileostomy reversals.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
PRISMA Diagram – Transparent reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analysis flow diagram outlining the search strategy results from initial search to included studies.(1).
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Operative Time (a) and Estimated Blood Loss (b) – Random effect meta-analysis comparing open and laparoscopic loop ileostomy reversal.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Length of Stay - Random effect meta-analysis comparing open and laparoscopic loop ileostomy reversal.
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Postoperative Morbidity (a), Superficial Surgical Site Infection (b), and Postoperative Ileus (c) - Random effect meta-analysis comparing open and laparoscopic loop ileostomy reversal.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Brown C.J., Fenech D., McLeod R.S. Reconstructive Techniques After Rectal Resection for Rectal Cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;2010(1) doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006040.pub2. Cochrane Colorectal Cancer Group, editor. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ma B., Gao P., Song Y., et al. Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of oncological and perioperative outcomes compared with laparoscopic total mesorectal excision. BMC Cancer. 2016;16(1):380. doi: 10.1186/s12885-016-2428-5. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Baek S.J., Kim C.H., Cho M.S., et al. Robotic surgery for rectal cancer can overcome difficulties associated with pelvic anatomy. Surg Endosc. 2015;29(6):1419–1424. doi: 10.1007/s00464-014-3818-x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Di Saverio S., Stupalkowska W., Hussein A., Fearnhead N., Wheeler J. Laparoscopic ultralow anterior resection with intracorporeal coloanal stapled anastomosis for low rectal cancer – is robotic surgery or transanal total mesorectal excision always needed to achieve a good oncological and sphincter-sparing dissection – a video vignette. Colorectal Dis. 2019 doi: 10.1111/codi.14642. Published online May 4codi.14642. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bax T.W., McNevin M.S. The value of diverting loop ileostomy on the high-risk colon and rectal anastomosis. Am J Surg. 2007;193(5):585–588. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2007.01.005. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources