# Liver Resections Combined with Closure of Loop Ileostomies:  A Retrospective Analysis

Authors: Jeffrey T. Lordan; Angela T. Riga; Nariman D. Karanjia
Journal: HPB Surgery
 (2008)

---

## Abstract

Background.
The management of patients with colorectal liver metastases and loop ileostomies remains controversial. This study was performed to assess the outcome of combined liver resection and loop ileostomy closure.
Methods.
Analysis of prospectively collected perioperative data, including morbidity and mortality, of 283 consecutive hepatectomies for colorectal liver metastases was undertaken. Consecutive liver resections were performed from 1996 to 2006 in one centre by a single surgeon (NDK).  Fourteen of these patients had combined liver resection and ileostomy closure. Case-matched analysis was undertaken.
Results.
Six (2.2%) patients died in the hepatectomy only group and none died in the combined group. There was no difference in operative blood loss between the two groups (0.09). Perioperative morbidity was 36% in the combined group and 23% in the hepatectomy alone group (P=0.33). Mean hospital stay was 14 days in the combined group and 11 days in the hepatectomy only group (P=0.046). Case-matched analysis showed a significant increase in hospital stay (P=0.03) and complications  (P=0.049)  in the combined group.
Conclusion.
In patients with CRLM, combined liver resection and closure of ileostomy may be associated with a higher operative morbidity and a prolonged hospital stay.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

Colorectal  cancer is the second  leading cause of cancer death in the
Western world [1, 2]. A quarter of the patients with colorectal cancer have liver
metastases at presentation and 40% go on to  develop liver metastases at a later
stage [3, 4]. Liver resection  remains the only potentially curative treatment
for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) [2–4]. Liver resections taking place in specialised high-volume centres
are well-tolerated procedures with low morbidity and mortality.A number of patients with low-rectal cancers undergo anterior
resection with defunctioning loop ileostomy [5]. The closure of loop ileostomies is a reasonably straightforward
procedure with low mortality and morbidity and short hospital stay [5].The aim of the study was to look at the impact of concomitant loop
ileostomy closures on the perioperative morbidity and length of hospital stay
after a liver resection.


## 2. Materials and Methods

An analysis of 283 consecutive hepatic resections for CRLM, undertaken
between September 1996 and August 2006, was performed. Data were collected and analysed prospectively
by a dedicated whole-time data clerk.All patients had a staging laparoscopy and intraoperative ultrasonography.
Postoperative analgesia was achieved with thoracic epidural.Perioperative mortality was defined as death during the same
hospital admission or within 30 days of the date of the operation if the
patient was discharged earlier. Postoperative complications were classified as
cardiac, respiratory, renal, hepatic impairment, thromboembolic, sepsis, and wound
infections.All loop ileostomies were closed using interrupted sutures. In
patients who underwent concomitant liver resection and ileostomy closure, no
other procedures were performed.Due to the discrepancy in the number of patients between the two
groups, a case-matched analysis was carried out. This directly compared the
patients who underwent concomitant loop ileostomy closure and liver resection
versus an equal number of patients who underwent liver resection alone. The
patients who underwent liver resection alone were matched for type of liver
resection, age, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA). They
also had loop ileostomies that had been formed at their primary colorectal
resection which were reversed at a separate time to the liver resection.Chi-squared andt-tests
were used to analyse data. P-value
less than .05 was considered to be significant.


## 3. Results

Of the 283 patients undergoing liver resection for CRLM, 14 had a
combined liver resection and concomitant loop ileostomy closure. The median
time from the formation of loop ileostomy to closure was 252 days (range 68 to
662 days).Table1 demonstrates patients’ demographics and perioperative
outcomes. There was no significant difference in age or median blood loss
between the two groups (P=.13 and .09, resp.). Hospital stay was longer
in the group who had a concomitant liver resection and loop ileostomy closure (P=.04).
There was no significant difference in maximum tumour size (P=.16). Hospital
stay was significantly longer in the combined group (13 days versus 10 days, P=.046).
The number of repeat resections in the hepatectomy alone group was
significantly higher (P<.0001).Table 1
Patients’ demographics and operative outcomes.
Hepatic resection alone (n=269)Hepatic resection + loop
stoma closure (n=14)P-valueMale:female2.2:11.8:1N/AMean age/years (range)66.5 (33 to 85.4)62 (42 to 73).13ASAN/A(i)
151 (19%)5 (36%)(ii) 2148 (55%)6 (43%)(iii) 3/436 (13%)0(iv) Not recorded34 (13%)3 (21%)Type of liver
resectionN/A(i) Hemihepatectomy95 (35%)6 (43%)(ii) Extended hemihepatectomy67 (25%)4 (29%)(iii) Parenchymal sparing
resection107 (40%)4 (29%)Number and distribution
of liver metastasesN/A(i) 11258(ii) 2612(iii) 3333(iv) 4161(v)>4220(vi) Bilateral liver
mets540(vii) Complete response
to chemotherapy120Repeat resections120<.0001Maximum tumours
size/mm31.5 (3 to 165)28.5 (5 to 85).16Mean blood loss/mL
(range)262 (0 to 2500)219.2 (0 to 2100).09Mean hospital
stay/days (range)11 (3 to 53)14 (8 to 23).046ASA = American Society of Anesthesiologists.Table2 shows the number and type of perioperative complications.
There were 62 (23%) complications in the group who had a liver resection alone
compared with 5 (36%) complications in the concomitant group (P=.33).Table 2
Perioperative
complications.
ComplicationHepatic resection alone (n=269)Hepatic resection + loop
stoma closure (n=14)Cardiac140Respiratory
chest infection71Respiratory failure70Renal30Liver insufficiency50Thromboembolic10Sepsis50Intestinal obstruction01Deep wound infection92Bile leak111Total (%)62 (23%)5 (36%)P=.33.However, the number of serious complications (grade III or above,
according to the classification of surgical complications [6]) in the group who had a liver resection alone was 18 (6.7%) versus 2 (14%) in the concomitant
group (P=.42).There were 6 (2.2%) postoperative deaths in the hepatectomy group. 3
died due to hepatic insufficiency, 2 due to cardiac complications, and 1 due to
sepsis. There were no deaths in the group who had a liver resection and loop
ileostomy closure.Table3 demonstrates a case-matched analysis of an equal number of
patients to the group who had concomitant loop ileostomy closure and liver
resection. There was no difference in age, type of liver resection, ASA, number
and distribution of liver metastases, maximum tumour size, or blood loss.
Hospital stay was significantly longer in the concomitant group (P=.03)
as was the complication rate (P=.049), although serious complication
rates were not significantly different (0.13). There were no postoperative
deaths in these two groups.Table 3
Case-matched
analysis.
Hepatic resection alone (n=14)Hepatic resection + loop
stoma closure (n=14)P-valueMale:female2.6:11.8:1N/AMean age/years (range)59.7 (34 to 77)62 (42 to 73).6ASAN/A(i) 15 (36%)5 (36%)(ii) 26 (43%)6 (43%)(iii) 3/42 (14%)0(iv) Not recorded1 (7%)3 (21%)Type of liver
resectionN/A(i)
Hemihepatectomy6 (43%)6 (43%)(ii)
Extended hemihepatectomy3 (21%)4 (29%)(iii)
Parenchyma sparing
resection5 (36%)4 (29%)Number and distribution
of liver metastasesN/A(i) 188(ii) 242(iii) 313(iv) 401(v)>410(vi) Bilateral liver
mets30Maximum tumours
size/mm26.5 (4 to 130)28.5 (5 to 85).5Mean blood loss/mL
(range)216 (30 to 2500)219 (<20 to 2100).15Mean hospital
stay/days (range)11 (6 to 15)14 (8 to 23).03Complications1 (7.1%)5 (36%).049Serious complications (grade III or above)  [6]02 (14%).13


## 4. Discussion

Loop, or defunctioning, ileostomies are often created to minimise
the impact of peritoneal sepsis from an anastomotic dehiscence following
coloanal or low-colorectal anastomosis [5, 7]. However, it probably does not reduce the incidence of anastomotic
leak [5, 8–10]. The patients in this series appear to have had a substantial delay
in time from formation to closure compared to the literature  [5, 7]. Loop ileostomy closure is often considered low priority by
clinicians [5, 7], and it is likely that more consideration was given to treating the
liver metastases, with neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by liver resection.Patients suitable for hepatectomy often request a closure of their
loop ileostomy at the time of liver resection. However, to the authors’
knowledge, there is no documented evidence demonstrating the safety of this
combined procedure compared with hepatectomy alone.Anecdotally, it was felt in our institution that loop ileostomy closure
combined with liver resection increased morbidity. The analysis of the data
shows that there was a substantial increase in complications with the combined
procedure, although it did not reach significance, possibly due to the low
numbers involved. Although there were no postoperative deaths in the group who
had the combined procedure, there is an evidence that increased frequency of
complications during the perioperative period can be associated with a
significantly higher mortality regarding hepatectomy [11]. The analysis of the case-matched series, however, did show a
significant increase in complications in the concomitant group, although there
was no difference in serious complications [6]. Further evidence of the impact of combining these two procedures
was demonstrated by the significant increase in hospital stay both in the
overall analysis and the case-matched analysis.The literature reports perioperative morbidity regarding liver
resection for CRLM at 13–37% [1, 12, 13]. However, complication
rates associated with hepatectomy have steadily improved over the years partly due
to accurate patient assessment and selection and improved critical care. The
mortality in the hepatectomy alone group was 2.2%. In the literature, operative
mortality for liver resection has reduced over the years to less than 5% in
experienced centres due to improved patient assessment and selection [14, 15]. Three of the six
patients in our series died due to hepatic insufficiency. This may be related
to intraoperative Pringle manoeuvres, or the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy,
which can be associated with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) [16].Recently, articles have reported that loop stoma closure as a
procedure in its own right can be associated with a substantial morbidity, and
is not necessarily the “easy, low-risk” procedure it may once have been
considered [17, 18]. This may explain the
substantial increase in morbidity in patients undergoing closure of loop
ileostomy combined with hepatectomy found in this study. The increased
complication rate may also explain the significantly higher hospital stay seen in
the group who had the combined procedure.Although there were differences in outcomes between the two groups,
the study is limited not only
due to the numbers but also due
to the potential difference in disease biology between them. However, a
recent study comparing hepatectomy and synchronous colonic resection versus colonic
resection alone concluded that combining the procedure significantly increases
the hospital stay and morbidity rate, reporting a median hospital stay of 13.9
days and complication rate of 56.3% [19].Patients occasionally request that their loop stoma be closed at the
time of hepatectomy. In such cases, the risks demonstrated in this article can
be presented to patients before making an informed decision.In conclusion, combined liver resection and concomitant closure of
loop ileostomy may be associated with increased perioperative morbidity and prolonged
hospital stay.



---

*Source: 501397-2008-12-10.xml*