Ileostomy versus colostomy: impact on functional outcomes after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer

Even if a defunctioning stoma mitigates the serious consequences of anastomotic leakage after total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer, the presence of a temporary stoma or having a stoma for a prolonged period of time may also be a determining factor for further morbidities and poor bowel function. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of diverting stomas on clinical and functional outcomes after TME, comparing ileostomy or colostomy effects.

All consecutive patients who underwent TME for rectal cancer between March 2017 and December 2020 in three Italian referral centres were enrolled in the present study. For every patient sex, age, stage of the tumour, neoadjuvant therapy, surgical technique, anastomotic technique, the presence of a diverting stoma, perioperative complications and functional postoperative status were recorded. Considering the diverting stoma, the kind of stoma, length of time before closure and stoma related complications were evaluated.

During the study period 416 consecutive patients (63% men) were included. Preoperative neoadjuvant therapy was performed in 79%. A minimally invasive approach was performed in >95% of patients. Temporary stoma was performed during the operation in 387 patients (93%) (ileostomy 71%, colostomy 21%). The stoma was closed in 84% of patients. The median time from surgery to stoma closure was 145 days. No difference was found between ileostomy and colostomy in overall morbidity after stoma creation and closure. Moreover, increased postoperative functional disturbance seemed to be significantly proportional to the attending time for closure for ileostomy.

The presence of a defunctioning stoma seems to have a negative impact on functional bowel activity, especially for delayed closure for ileostomy. This should be considered when the kind of stoma (ileostomy vs. colostomy) is selected for each patient.