Limiting the indications for preventive ileostomy in rectal resections: single-center retrospective study
- Authors: Ismayilov I.A.1,2
-
Affiliations:
- Republican Medical Diagnostic Center
- A. Aliyev Azerbaijan State Advanced Training Institute for Doctors, Ministry of Health of the Republic of Azerbaijan
- Issue: Vol 16, No 2 (2026)
- Pages: 134-143
- Section: ORIGINAL REPORT
- Published: 20.06.2026
- URL: https://onco-surgery.info/jour/article/view/943
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.17650/2949-5857-2026-16-2-134-143
- ID: 943
Cite item
Abstract
Background. Temporary intestinal stoma reduces the risk of life-threatening complications in the early postoperative period. However, psychological stress related to the stoma and the need for repeat surgical intervention necessitate the search for ways to narrow the indications for this procedure.
Aim. To evaluate the safety of a strategy designed to restrict indications for preventive intestinal stoma formation after rectal resections.
Materials and methods. The study included patients over 18 years of age who underwent rectal resections for various indications between 2017 and 2026. Patients were divided into 2 groups. Before 2019 (1st group), routine mobilization of the splenic flexure was not performed; an end-to-end (predominantly) or side-to-end stapled anastomosis was created at the operating surgeon’s discretion, or a primary coloanal anastomosis was performed for low rectal tumors. A preventive ileostomy was selectively created based on the presence of risk factors, at the operating surgeon’s discretion. From 2020 (2nd group), routine mobilization of the splenic flexure of the colon, mandatory creation of a side-to-end stapled anastomosis, or a hand-sewn two-stage Turnbull–Cutait pull-through coloanal anastomosis were introduced into practice, allowing for narrower indications for preventive ileostomy creation. The primary endpoint of the study was the incidence of anastomotic leak. Secondary endpoints included the overall complication rate, postoperative mortality, operative time, blood loss, and the rate of preventive intestinal stoma formation.
Results. A total of 300 patients were included in the study: 76 in the 1st group and 224 in the 2nd group. The overall rate of grade IIIB–IV complications was 12 (15.8 %) in the group operated on before 2020, and 7 (3.1 %) in the group operated on after 2020 (р < 0.001). In the 1st group, preventive ileostomies were created in 3 (7.9 %) patients after partial mesorectal excision, 9 (50 %) after total mesorectal excision, and 14 (100 %) after ultra-low rectal resection with coloanal anastomosis. Anastomotic leakage developed in 3 (21.4 %) patients after ultra-low rectal resection with coloanal anastomosis, and in 5 (27.8 %) after rectal resections. Among those in the 2nd group, preventive ileostomies were created in 1 (0.8 %) patient after partial and in 7 (13.7 %) patients after total mesorectal excision. Anastomotic leakage developed in 1 (0.8 %) patient who underwent partial mesorectal excision, 4 (7.8 %) patients after low anterior rectal resection, and 2 (3.9 %) patients after the Turnbull–Cutait procedure. After multivariate analysis, the following factors for anastomotic leakage were identified: the decision to create a preventive ileostomy (hazard ratio (HR) 9.463; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.137–78.761; p = 0.038), chemoradiotherapy (HR 9.283; 95% CI 1.112–77.514; p = 0.04), American Society of Anesthesiologists classification score III or higher (HR 10.093; 95% CI 1.888–53.945; p = 0.007), and blood loss over 100 mL (HR 4.889; 95% CI 1.016–23.531; p = 0.048).
Conclusion. Standardization of surgical approaches for rectal cancer treatment, including routine mobilization of the splenic flexure, creation of a side-to-end anastomosis, and the use of the Turnbull–Cutait operation for ultra-low resections, allows for a reduction in the preventive intestinal stoma formation rate without increasing the risk of severe postoperative complications. Meticulous monitoring of the patient’s condition in the postoperative period is an essential requirement.
About the authors
I. A. Ismayilov
Republican Medical Diagnostic Center; A. Aliyev Azerbaijan State Advanced Training Institute for Doctors, Ministry of Health of the Republic of Azerbaijan
Author for correspondence.
Email: dr.ilgarismayil@yahoo.com
ORCID iD: 0009-0009-3265-9831
Azerbaijan, 147 Tbilisskiy Prospekt, Baku, AZ1122; 35 Muzaffar Hasanov St., Baku, AZ1012
References
- Mrak K., Uranitsch S., Pedross F. et al. Diverting ileostomy versus no diversion after low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a prospective, randomized, multicenter trial. Surgery 2016;159(4):1129–39. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2015.11.006
- Chude G.G., Rayate N.V., Patris V. et al. Defunctioning loop ileostomy with low anterior resection for distal rectal cancer: should we make an ileostomy as a routine procedure? A prospective randomized study. Hepatogastroenterology 2008;55(86-87):1562–7. PMID: 19102343.
- Phan K., Oh L., Ctercteko G. et al. Does a stoma reduce the risk of anastomotic leak and need for re-operation following low anterior resection for rectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Gastrointest Oncol 2019;10(2):179–87. doi: 10.21037/jgo.2018.11.07
- Myrseth E., Nymo L.S., Gjessing P.F., Norderval S. Diverting stomas reduce reoperation rates for anastomotic leak but not overall reoperation rates within 30 days after anterior rectal resection: a national cohort study. Int J Colorectal Dis 2022;37(7):1681–8. doi: 10.1007/s00384-022-04205-8
- Emile S.H., Khan S.M., Garoufalia Z. et al. When is a diverting stoma indicated after low anterior resection? A meta-analysis of randomized trials and meta-regression of the risk factors of leakage and complications in non-diverted patients. J Gastrointest Surg Off J Soc Surg Aliment Tract 2022;26(11):2368–79. doi: 10.1007/s11605-022-05427-5
- Ihnát P., Guňková P., Peteja M. et al. Diverting ileostomy in laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: high price of protection. Surg Endosc 2016;30(11):4809–16. doi: 10.1007/s00464-016-4811-3
- Pompeu B.F., Pasqualotto E., Pigossi B.D. et al. Turnbull–Cutait pull-through coloanal anastomosis versus standard coloanal anastomosis plus diverting ileostomy for low anterior resection: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2024;409(1):187. doi: 10.1007/s00423-024-03379-9
- Clavien P.A., Barkun J., de Oliveira M.L. et al. The Clavien–Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg 2009;250(2):187–96. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181b13ca2
- Rahbari N.N., Weitz J., Hohenberger W. et al. Definition and grading of anastomotic leakage following anterior resection of the rectum: a proposal by the International Study Group of Rectal Cancer. Surgery 2010;147(3):339–51. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2009.10.012
- Venn M.L., Hooper R.L., Pampiglione T. et al. Systematic review of preoperative and intraoperative colorectal Anastomotic Leak Prediction Scores (ALPS). BMJ Open 2023;13(7):e073085. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-073085
- Xiao C., Zhou M., Yang X. et al. Novel nomogram with microvascular density in the surgical margins can accurately predict the risk for anastomotic leakage after anterior resection for rectal cancer. J Surg Oncol 2019;120(8):1412–9. doi: 10.1002/jso.25730
- Shiwakoti E., Song J., Li J. et al. Prediction model for anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic rectal cancer resection. J Int Med Res 2020;48(9):300060520957547. doi: 10.1177/0300060520957547
- La Raja C., Foppa C., Maroli A. et al. Surgical outcomes of Turnbull–Cutait delayed coloanal anastomosis with pull-through versus immediate coloanal anastomosis with diverting stoma after total mesorectal excision for low rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Tech Coloproctology 2022;26(8):603–13. doi: 10.1007/s10151-022-02601-4
- Biondo S., Barrios O., Trenti L. et al. Long-term results of 2-stage turnbull-cutait pull-through coloanal anastomosis for low rectal cancer: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg 2024;159(9):990–6. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2024.2262
- McKechnie T., Lee J., Lee Y. et al. Ghost ileostomy versus loop ileostomy following oncologic resection for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Innov 2023;30(4):501–16. doi: 10.1177/15533506231169066
Supplementary files


