Experience of using a modified technique for forming a virtual ileostomy in low colorectal anastomoses
https://doi.org/10.24884/0042-4625-2025-184-4-63-69
Abstract
INTRODUCTION. Virtual ileostomy was proposed as an alternative to real ileostomy in low colorectal anastomoses. The use of the virtual ileostomy technique allows postponing the decision on the need to form a real ileostomy until the early postoperative period and performing this transformation only in patients with absolute indications. Analyzing our own experience of using virtual ileostomy according to the classical technique, we identified certain shortcomings in the virtual ileostomy technology, which led to an increase in the number of postoperative complications.
The OBJECTIVE was to improve the treatment outcomes of patients with rectal cancer who underwent low anterior rectal resection with coloanal anastomosis by using a new method for forming a virtual ileostomy.
METHODS AND MATERIALS. The article presents a comparative analysis of the results of treating patients with the classical method (CM) of forming a virtual ileostomy and with the technique developed in our clinic – new method (NM). The CM group included 40 patients, the NM group included 43 patients.
RESULTS. The study demonstrates a significantly higher number of postoperative complications in the CM group – 13 (32.5 %) versus 6 (14.0 %) in the nM group, p=0.04. The main difference was observed in the incidence of postoperative intestinal paresis: in the CM group – 6 (15.0 %), in the NM group – 1 (2.3 %), p=0.044. Among 83 patients in both groups, the incidence of anastomotic failure was 7 (8.4 %) cases, while no significant differences were found in the comparison groups.
CONCLUSION. Thus, the use of the virtual ileostomy formation technique developed by us significantly reduces the incidence of postoperative complications.
About the Authors
S. V. Polozov
Surgut State University; Surgut District Clinical Hospital
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
Polozov Sergey V., Oncologist; Postgraduate Student of the Department of Surgical Diseases
24, build. 2, Energetikov str., Surgut, Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug – Yugra, 628408
1, Lenin ave., Surgut, Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug – Yugra, 628412
Competing Interests:
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
V. V. Darvin
Surgut State University; Surgut District Clinical Hospital
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
Darvin Vladimir V., Dr. of Sci. (Med.), Professor, Head of the Department of Surgical Diseases
24, build. 2, Energetikov str., Surgut, Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug – Yugra, 628408
1, Lenin ave., Surgut, Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug – Yugra, 628412
Competing Interests:
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
E. A. Krasnov
Surgut District Clinical Hospital
Competing Interests:
Krasnov Evgeniy A., Cand. of Sci. (Med.), Chief Physician
24, build. 2, Energetikov str., Surgut, Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug – Yugra, 628408
Competing Interests:
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
I. M. Karimov
Surgut State University; Surgut District Clinical Hospital
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
Karimov Ilnur M., Cand. of Sci. (Med.), Oncologist, Surgut District Clinical Hospital, Senior Lecturer of the Department of Surgical Diseases
24, build. 2, Energetikov str., Surgut, Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug – Yugra, 628408
1, Lenin ave., Surgut, Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug – Yugra, 628412
Competing Interests:
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation. Clinical guidelines “Rectal cancer». М.2022. URL: http:// https://apicr.minzdrav.gov.ru/api.ashx?op=GetClinrecPdf&id=554_3.pdf (accessed: 07.08.2025).
2. Ouro S., Ferreira M. P., Albergaria D., Maio R. Loop ileostomy in rectal cancer surgery: Factors predicting reversal and stoma related morbidity. Langenbeck’s Arch Surg. 2021;406(3):843–3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-021-02169-x.
3. Flor-Lorente B., Sánchez-Guillén L., Pellino G. et al. “Virtual ileostomy” combined with early endoscopy to avoid a diversion ileostomy in low or ultralow colorectal anastomoses. A preliminary report. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2019;404(3):375–383.
4. Hernández A. V., Otten J., Christ H. et al. Ghost Ileostomy: Safe and Cost-effective Alternative to Ileostomy After Rectal Resection for Deep Infiltrating Endometriosis. In Vivo. 2022;36(3):1290–1296. https://doi.org/10.21873/invivo.12829. PMID: 35478159; PMCID: PMC9087109.
5. Zenger S., Gurbuz B., Can U. et al. Comparative study between ghost ileostomy and defunctioning ileostomy in terms of morbidity and costeffectiveness in low anterior resection for rectal cancer. Langenbeck’s archives of surgery. 2021;406(2):339–347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-021-02089-w.
6. Sacchi M., Legge P. D., Picozzi P. et al Virtual ileostomy following TME and primary sphincter-saving reconstruction for rectal cancer. Hepatogastroenterology. 2007;54:1676–1678.
7. 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. Surgical innovation. 2023;30(4):501–516. https://doi.org/10.1177/15533506231169066.
8. Zizzo M., Morini A., Zanelli M. et al. Short-Term Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Virtual/Ghost Ileostomy or Defunctioning Ileostomy after Anterior Resection of the Rectum: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of clinical medicine. 2023;12(11):3607. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12113607.
9. Mori L., Vita M., Razzetta F. et al. Ghost ileostomy in anterior resection for rectal carcinoma: is it worthwhile? Diseases of the colon and rectum. 2013;56(1):29–34. https://doi.org/10.1097/DCR.0b013e3182716ca1.
10. Palumbo P., Usai S., Pansa A. et al. Anastomotic Leakage in Rectal Surgery: Role of the Ghost Ileostomy. Anticancer research. 2019;39(6):2975–2983. https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.13429.
11. Marrosu A., Serventi F., Pulighe F. et al. The “virtual ileostomy” in elective colorectal surgery: is it useful? Techniques in coloproctology. 2014;18(3):319–320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-012-0964-9.
12. Sacchi M., Picozzi P., Di Legge P. et al. Virtual ileostomy following rectal cancer surgery: a good tool to avoid unusefull stomas? Hepatogastroenterology. 2011;58:1479–1481. https://doi.org/10.5754/hge11100.
13. Marrosu A., Serventi F., Pulighe F. et al. The “virtual ileostomy” in elective colorectal surgery: is it useful? Tech Coloproctol. 2014;18:319–320.
14. Cerroni M., Cirocchi R., Morelli U. et al. Ghost Ileostomy with or without abdominal parietal split. World J Surg Oncol. 2011;9:92. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7819-9-92.
15. Baloyiannis I., Perivoliotis K., Diamantis A., Tzovaras G. Virtual ileostomy in elective colorectal surgery: a systematic review of the literature. Tech Coloproctol. 2020;24(1):23–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-01902127-2. PMID: 31820192.
16. Darwin V. V., Polozov S. V., Krasnov E. A., Karimov I. M. Virtual ileostomy. Grekov’s Bulletin of Surgery.2023;182(6):65–69. (In )
Supplementary files
Review
For citations:
Polozov S.V., Darvin V.V., Krasnov E.A., Karimov I.M. Experience of using a modified technique for forming a virtual ileostomy in low colorectal anastomoses. Grekov's Bulletin of Surgery. 2025;184(4):63-69. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24884/0042-4625-2025-184-4-63-69
Views:
19
Email this article 