Feasibility and efficacy of ghost ileostomy in typhoid ileal perforations: A prospective observational study

Loop ileostomy is commonly performed for typhoid ileal perforations as temporary faecal diversion. This is associated with several stoma-related complications and also requires further surgery for its closure. Thus, we were prompted to conduct a prospective observational study on the safety, feasibility and efficacy of ghost ileostomy in typhoid ileal perforations. After dealing with the perforation, a ghost ileostomy was performed in 10 selected patients with favourable circumstances; otherwise, a conventional loop ileostomy was performed in 19 patients. The two groups were comparable (p > 0.05) for morbidity and mortality except for stoma-related complications, seen only in the loop ileostomy group. Body weight was better preserved in the ghost ileostomy group. One patient in the ghost ileostomy group required conversion to loop ileostomy owing to signs of intra-peritoneal suture leak, without any detriment to outcome. Our study shows safety, feasibility and efficacy of ghost ileostomy in selected patients with typhoid ileal perforations, thus avoiding loop ileostomy in one-third of patients.

Ghost ileostomy versus conventional loop ileostomy in patients undergoing low anterior resection for rectal cancer (DRKS00013997): protocol for a randomised controlled trial

IntroductionAnastomotic leakage is the most important complication in colorectal surgery occurring in up to 20% after low anterior rectal resection. Therefore, a diverting ileostomy is usually created during low anterior resection to protect the anastomosis or rather to diminish the consequences in case of anastomotic leakage. The so-called virtual or ghost ileostomy is a pre-stage ostomy that can be easily exteriorised, if anastomotic leakage is suspected, in order to avoid the severe consequences of anastomotic leakage. On the other hand, an actual ileostomy can be avoided in patients, who do not develop anastomotic leakage.Methods and analysisThe GHOST trial is a randomised controlled pilot trial comparing ghost ileostomy with conventional loop ileostomy in patients undergoing low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. After screening for eligibility and obtaining informed consent, a total of 60 adult patients are included in the trial. Patients are intraoperatively randomised to the trial groups in a 1:1 ratio after assuring that none of the intraoperative exclusion criteria are present. The main outcome parameter is the comprehensive complication index as a measure of safety. Further outcomes include specific complications, stoma-related complications, complications of ileostomy closure, frequency of transformation of ghost ileostomy into conventional ileostomy, frequency of terminal ostomy creation, proportion of patients with an ostomy at 6 months after index surgery, anorectal function (Wexner score) and quality of life assessed by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 and CR29 questionnaires. Follow-up for each individual patient will be 6 months.Ethics and disseminationThe GHOST trial has been approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of Heidelberg University (reference number S-694/2017). If the intervention proves to be safe, loop ileostomy could be spared in a large proportion of patients, thus also avoiding stoma-related complications and a second operation (ileostomy closure) with its inherent complications in these patients.Trial registration numberGerman Clinical Trials Registry (DRKS00013997); Universal Trial Number: U1111-1208-9742.

A Decalogue to Avoid Routine Ileostomy in Selected Patients With Border Line Risk to Develop Anastomotic Leakage After Minimally Invasive Low-Anterior Resection: A Pilot Study

Purpose. Protective ileostomy (PI) during anterior resection (AR) for rectal cancer decreases the incidence of anastomotic leakage (AL) and its subsequent complications, but it may itself be the cause of morbidity. The aim is to report our protocol in the management of selected patients with borderline risk to develop AL after laparoscopic AR and ghost ileostomy (GI) creation. Methods. Patients who underwent AR were stratified based on the risk to develop AL. Steps to avoid PI were splenic flexure mobilization, reduced pelvic bleeding, to employ different stapler charge if neoadjuvant chemo-radiotherapy is performed, to perform a horizontal section of the rectum, to evaluate the anastomotic vascularization with a fluorescence angiography, to perform a side-to-end anastomosis, intraoperative methylene blue test, pelvic and transanal drainage tubes placement, and the GI creation. After surgery, inflammatory blood markers were monitored to detect potential leakages. Results. Twelve patients were included. In one case, the specimen proximal section was changed after fluorescence angiography. There were no conversions in this group of patients. One postoperative AL occurred and was treated with radiological drainage placement, not being necessary to convert the GI. PI was avoided in 100% of cases. Conclusions. Patients’ characteristics cannot be changed, but several steps were used to avoid routine PI creation. The present protocol could be a valuable option to avoid PI in selected patients. Further studies with a wider sample size, and defined criteria to stratify the patients based on the risk to develop AL, are required.