Scholarlink

Purpose <p>Temporary ileostomy is commonly performed to protect rectal anastomosis after rectal surgery, yet the optimal timing of reversal remains unsettled. This study compared postoperative outcomes among early, intermediate, and late ileostomy closure and assessed the safety of early closure in selected patients.</p> Methods <p>PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase were systematically searched from inception to June 21, 2026. Randomized controlled trials comparing different timing strategies for ileostomy closure were included. Closure timing was categorized according to the reported median or mean interval from primary surgery to reversal as early (≤ 35 days), intermediate (&gt; 35 and ≤ 120 days), and late (&gt; 120 days) based on the median or mean interval. The primary outcomes were total postoperative complications and major complications. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed.</p> Results <p>Ten randomized trials involving 871 patients (316 early, 312 intermediate, and 243 late) were included. Total postoperative complications were comparable among the three groups. Compared with intermediate closure, early closure was associated with higher risks of major complications (odds ratio [OR] 5.30, 95% credible interval [CrI] 1.30–63.00) and wound complications (OR 4.80, 95%CrI 1.10–35.00), but a lower risk of stoma-related complications (OR 0.086, 95%CrI 0.0057-0.82). No significant differences were observed between early and late closure or between intermediate and late closure. In patients without clinical or radiological evidence of anastomotic leakage, total and major complication rates were similar across groups.</p> Conclusion <p>Early ileostomy closure may be feasible and safe in carefully selected patients without evidence of anastomotic leakage, reducing stoma-related complications at the expense of increased wound complications.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Optimal timing of ileostomy closure after rectal surgery: A Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月9日

查看全文
  • Zikai Zhou,
  • Siyi Wang,
  • Jiahao Zhou,
  • Jun Huang,
  • Xiangbing Deng,
  • Ziqiang Wang,
  • Wenjian Meng,
  • Qingbin Wu

摘要

Purpose

Temporary ileostomy is commonly performed to protect rectal anastomosis after rectal surgery, yet the optimal timing of reversal remains unsettled. This study compared postoperative outcomes among early, intermediate, and late ileostomy closure and assessed the safety of early closure in selected patients.

Methods

PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase were systematically searched from inception to June 21, 2026. Randomized controlled trials comparing different timing strategies for ileostomy closure were included. Closure timing was categorized according to the reported median or mean interval from primary surgery to reversal as early (≤ 35 days), intermediate (> 35 and ≤ 120 days), and late (> 120 days) based on the median or mean interval. The primary outcomes were total postoperative complications and major complications. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed.

Results

Ten randomized trials involving 871 patients (316 early, 312 intermediate, and 243 late) were included. Total postoperative complications were comparable among the three groups. Compared with intermediate closure, early closure was associated with higher risks of major complications (odds ratio [OR] 5.30, 95% credible interval [CrI] 1.30–63.00) and wound complications (OR 4.80, 95%CrI 1.10–35.00), but a lower risk of stoma-related complications (OR 0.086, 95%CrI 0.0057-0.82). No significant differences were observed between early and late closure or between intermediate and late closure. In patients without clinical or radiological evidence of anastomotic leakage, total and major complication rates were similar across groups.

Conclusion

Early ileostomy closure may be feasible and safe in carefully selected patients without evidence of anastomotic leakage, reducing stoma-related complications at the expense of increased wound complications.