Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2026
Optimal timing of ileostomy closure after rectal surgery: A Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zhou Zikai, Wang Siyi, Zhou Jiahao, Huang Jun, Deng Xiangbing, Wang Ziqiang, Meng Wenjian, Wu Qingbin
Аннотация
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.
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.