Author
Listed:
- Amália Cinthia Meneses do Rêgo
(Potiguar University, Brazil)
- Irami Araújo-Filho
(Potiguar University, Brazil)
Abstract
Anastomotic leakage is one of the most significant complications following low colorectal surgery for rectal cancer, with profound implications on morbidity, mortality, and long-term oncological outcomes. Protective ileostomy has been widely adopted to mitigate these risks by diverting fecal flow away from the anastomotic site, allowing it to heal without exposure to bowel contents. However, recent discourse challenges the routine use of protective ileostomies, suggesting a more selective approach based on patient-specific risk factors, surgical techniques, and intraoperative findings. This review examines the multifactorial nature of anastomotic failure, focusing on the impact of patient comorbidities, neoadjuvant therapies, surgical expertise, and technological advances, such as fluorescence angiography with indocyanine green (ICG), to assess tissue perfusion. The concept of the “corner effect” in low colorectal anastomoses, where tension and ischemia at stapled junctions predispose to leakage, is discussed. The review also explores the implications of long-term ileostomy use, including its association with Low Anterior Resection Syndrome (LARS) and delayed recovery. Further, we address gaps in the literature regarding the timing of ileostomy reversal, the influence of neoadjuvant therapy on anastomotic healing, and the potential role of bioabsorbable materials in reinforcing anastomoses. The review calls for a more personalized approach to protective ileostomy use, integrating patient characteristics, surgical expertise, and technological advancements to optimize outcomes in colorectal cancer surgery.
Suggested Citation
Amália Cinthia Meneses do Rêgo & Irami Araújo-Filho, 2024.
"Anastomotic Integrity in Colorectal Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: The Role of Protective Ileostomy and the Corner Effect,"
European Journal of Clinical Medicine, European Open Science, vol. 5(5), pages 14-21, September.
Handle:
RePEc:epw:clinic:v:5:y:2024:i:5:id:12352
DOI: 10.24018/clinicmed.2024.5.5.352
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:epw:clinic:v:5:y:2024:i:5:id:12352. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Support Team (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://eu-opensci.org/index.php/clinicmed .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.