Loop ileostomy versus loop colostomy for fecal diversion after colorectal or coloanal anastomosis: a meta-analysis

Background Sphincter-saving surgery for the treatment of middle and low rectal cancer has spread considerably when total mesorectal excision became standard treatment. In order to reduce leakage-related complications, surgeons often perform a derivative stoma, a loop ileostomy (LI), or a loop colostomy (LC), but to date, there is no evidence on which is the better technique to adopt. Methods We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials until 2007 and observational studies comparing temporary LI and LC for temporary decompression of colorectal and/or coloanal anastomoses. Clinically relevant events were grouped into four study outcomes: general outcome measures: dehydratation and wound infection GOM construction of the stoma outcome measures: parastomal hernia, stenosis, sepsis, prolapse, retraction, necrosis, and hemorrhage closure of the stoma outcome measures: anastomotic leak or fistula, wound infection COM, occlusion and hernia functioning of the stoma outcome measures: occlusion and skin irritation. Results Twelve comparative studies were included in this analysis, five randomized controlled trials and seven observational studies. Overall, the included studies reported on 1,529 patients, 894 (58.5%) undergoing defunctioning LI. LI reduced the risk of construction of the stoma outcome measure (odds ratio, OR = 0.47). Specifically, patients undergoing LI had a lower risk of prolapse (OR = 0.21) and sepsis (OR = 0.54). LI was associated with an excess risk of occlusion after stoma closure (OR = 2.13) and dehydratation (OR = 4.61). No other significant difference was found for outcomes. Cconclusions Our overview shows that LI is associated with a lower risk of construction of the stoma outcome measures.