Short-Term Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Virtual/Ghost Ileostomy or Defunctioning Ileostomy after Anterior Resection of the Rectum: A Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Anterior rectal resection (ARR) represents one of the most frequently performed methods in colorectal surgery, mainly carried out for rectal cancer (RC) treatment. Defunctioning ileostomy (DI) has long been chosen as a method to “protect” colorectal or coloanal anastomosis after ARR. However, DI does not rule out risks of more or less serious complications. A proximal intra-abdominal closed-loop ileostomy, the so-called virtual/ghost ileostomy (VI/GI), could limit the number of DIs and the associated morbidity. Materials and Methods: We performed a systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyzes (PRISMA) guidelines. Meta-analysis was performed by use of RevMan [Computer program] Version 5.4. Results: The five included comparative studies (VI/GI or DI) covering an approximately 20-year study period (2008–2021). All included studies were observational ones and originated from European countries. Meta-analysis indicated VI/GI as significantly associated with lower short-term morbidity rates related to VI/GI or DI after primary surgery (RR: 0.21, 95% CI: 0.07–0.64, p = 0.006), fewer dehydration (RR: 0.17, 95% CI: 0.04–0.75, p = 0.02) and ileus episodes after primary surgery (RR: 0.20, 95% CI: 0.05–0.77, p = 0.02), fewer readmissions after primary surgery (RR: 0.17, 95% CI: 0.07–0.43, p = 0.0002) and readmissions after primary surgery plus stoma closure surgery (RR: 0.14, 95% CI: 0.06–0.30, p < 0.00001) than the DI group. On the contrary, no differences were identified in terms of AL after primary surgery, short-term morbidity after primary surgery, major complications (CD ≥ III) after primary surgery and length of hospital stay after primary surgery. Conclusions: Given the significant biases among meta-analyzed studies (small overall sample size and the small number of events analyzed, in particular), our results require careful interpretation. Further randomized, possibly multi-center trials may be of paramount importance in confirming our results.