Introduction: Fecal diversion is considered an effective procedure to protect bowel anastomosis at high risk for leak. Some concerns exist regarding the risk for a significant morbidity associated to ileostomy creation itself and moreover to its closure. Surgical expertise and closure techniques are considered potential factors influencing morbidity. Aim of the study is to present a single-institution experience with ileostomy closures, in a teaching hospital, whereas ileostomy reversal is mainly performed by young residents.
Methods: A prospective database was investigated to extract data of patients who underwent loop ileostomy closure between January 2005 and December 2014. Ileostomy reversion was always realized in a handsewn fashion, performing either a direct closure (DC) or a resection plus end-to-end anastomosis (EEA). Postoperative morbidity was graded according to Clavien-Dindo classification. Outcomes after DC and EEA were compared by Fisher's exact test and Wilcoxon rank-sum test.
Results: Two hundred ninety-eight patients were included. Ileostomy reversal was performed by EEA in 236 patients (79.19 %) and by DC in 62 patients (20.81 %). Surgery was performed with a peristomal access in 296 cases (99.33 %). Incidence of anastomotic leak was 0.67 % (2/298). Overall reoperation rate was 0.34 % (1/298). Short-term overall morbidity rate was 20.47 %; but major complications (≥ grade III) occurred in only one patient (0.34 %). Mortality was nil. No significant differences in postoperative morbidity were found between the DC and EEA group.
Conclusion: Loop ileostomy reversal is a safe procedure, associated to a low major morbidity and excellent results, even if performed with a handsewn technique by supervised trainee surgeons.
Keywords: Colonanal anastomosis; Handsewn techniques; Ileostomy; Ileostomy morbidiy; lleostomy reversal.