Morbidity of Diverting Ileostomy for Rectal Cancer: Analysis of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program

There is controversy regarding the potential benefits of diverting ileostomy after low anterior resection (LAR). This study aims to examine the morbidity associated with diverting ileostomy in rectal cancer. A retrospective review of LAR cases was performed using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (2005 to 2011). Patients who underwent LAR with and without diversion were selected. Demographics, intraoperative events, and postoperative complications were reviewed. Among the 6337 cases sampled, 991 (16%) received a diverting ileostomy. Patients who were diverted were younger (60 vs 63 years), predominantly male (64 vs 53%), and more likely to have received pre-operative radiation (39 vs 12%). There was no significant difference in steroid use, weight loss, or intraoperative transfusion. Postoperatively, there was no significant difference in length of stay, rate of septic complications, wound infections, and mortality. The rate of reoperation was lower in the diverted group (4.5 vs 6.9%). Diversion was associated with a higher risk-adjusted rate of acute renal failure (OR 2.4; 95% CI (1.2, 4.6); P < 0.05). The use of diverting ileostomy reduces the rate of reoperation but is associated with an increased risk of acute renal insufficiency. These findings emphasize the need for refinement of patient selection and close follow-up to limit morbidity.

Download Full-text

Reporting Methodology of Neurosurgical Studies Utilizing the American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Database: A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal

Neurosurgery ◽

10.1093/neuros/nyz180 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 86 (1) ◽

pp. 46-60 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Yagiz Yolcu ◽

Waseem Wahood ◽

Mohammed Ali Alvi ◽

Panagiotis Kerezoudis ◽

Elizabeth B Habermann ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Quality Improvement ◽

Critical Appraisal ◽

Quality Improvement Program ◽

Improvement Program ◽

Surgical Quality ◽

Acs Nsqip ◽

Significant Difference ◽

American College Of Surgeons ◽

Potential Sources ◽

Strobe Statement

AbstractBACKGROUNDUse of large databases such as the American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) has become increasingly common in neurosurgical research.OBJECTIVETo perform a critical appraisal and evaluation of the methodological reporting for studies in neurosurgical literature that utilize the ACS-NSQIP database.METHODSWe queried Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed databases for all neurosurgical studies utilizing the ACS-NSQIP. We assessed each study according to number of criteria fulfilled with respect to Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement, REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected Health Data (RECORD) Statement, and Journal of American Medical Association–Surgical Section (JAMA-Surgery) Checklist. A separate analysis was conducted among papers published in core and noncore journals in neurosurgery according to Bradford's law.RESULTSA total of 117 studies were included. Median (interquartile range [IQR]) scores for number of fulfilled criteria for STROBE Statement, RECORD Statement, and JAMA-Surgery Checklist were 20 (IQR:19-21), 9 (IQR:8-9), and 6 (IQR:5-6), respectively. For STROBE Statement, RECORD Statement, and JAMA-Surgery Checklist, item 9 (potential sources of bias), item 13 (supplemental information), and item 9 (missing data/sensitivity analysis) had the highest number of studies with no fulfillment among all studies (56, 68, 50%), respectively. When comparing core journals vs noncore journals, no significant difference was found (STROBE, P = .94; RECORD, P = .24; JAMA-Surgery checklist, P = .60).CONCLUSIONWhile we observed an overall satisfactory reporting of methodology, most studies lacked mention of potential sources of bias, data cleaning methods, supplemental information, and external validity. Given the pervasive role of national databases and registries for research and health care policy, the surgical community needs to ensure the credibility and quality of such studies that ultimately aim to improve the value of surgical care delivery to patients.

Download Full-text