Ghost ileostomy versus conventional loop ileostomy in patients undergoing low anterior resection for rectal cancer (DRKS00013997): protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Felix J Hüttner, Pascal Probst, André Mihaljevic, Pietro Contin, Colette Dörr-Harim, Alexis Ulrich, Martin Schneider, Markus W Büchler, Markus K Diener, Phillip Knebel, Felix J Hüttner, Pascal Probst, André Mihaljevic, Pietro Contin, Colette Dörr-Harim, Alexis Ulrich, Martin Schneider, Markus W Büchler, Markus K Diener, Phillip Knebel

Abstract

Introduction: Anastomotic leakage is the most important complication in colorectal surgery occurring in up to 20% after low anterior rectal resection. Therefore, a diverting ileostomy is usually created during low anterior resection to protect the anastomosis or rather to diminish the consequences in case of anastomotic leakage. The so-called virtual or ghost ileostomy is a pre-stage ostomy that can be easily exteriorised, if anastomotic leakage is suspected, in order to avoid the severe consequences of anastomotic leakage. On the other hand, an actual ileostomy can be avoided in patients, who do not develop anastomotic leakage.

Methods and analysis: The GHOST trial is a randomised controlled pilot trial comparing ghost ileostomy with conventional loop ileostomy in patients undergoing low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. After screening for eligibility and obtaining informed consent, a total of 60 adult patients are included in the trial. Patients are intraoperatively randomised to the trial groups in a 1:1 ratio after assuring that none of the intraoperative exclusion criteria are present. The main outcome parameter is the comprehensive complication index as a measure of safety. Further outcomes include specific complications, stoma-related complications, complications of ileostomy closure, frequency of transformation of ghost ileostomy into conventional ileostomy, frequency of terminal ostomy creation, proportion of patients with an ostomy at 6 months after index surgery, anorectal function (Wexner score) and quality of life assessed by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 and CR29 questionnaires. Follow-up for each individual patient will be 6 months.

Ethics and dissemination: The GHOST trial has been approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of Heidelberg University (reference number S-694/2017). If the intervention proves to be safe, loop ileostomy could be spared in a large proportion of patients, thus also avoiding stoma-related complications and a second operation (ileostomy closure) with its inherent complications in these patients.

Trial registration number: German Clinical Trials Registry (DRKS00013997); Universal Trial Number: U1111-1208-9742.

Keywords: colorectal surgery; gastrointestinal tumours.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Trial flow chart. LAR/TME, low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision; POD, postoperative day.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Schematic illustration of the ghost ileostomy (A) silicone loop is passed around the terminal ileum; (B) silicone loop is exteriorised, while the terminal ileum remains intra-abdominal without tension.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Photograph of a patient with ghost ileostomy prior to removal of the silicone loop on postoperative day 6.

References

    1. Ferlay J, Ervik M, Lam F, et al. . Global cancer observatory: cancer today. Lyon, France: international agency for research on cancer, 2018. Available: [Accessed 16 Feb 2020].
    1. Rahbari NN, 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;147:339–51. 10.1016/j.surg.2009.10.012
    1. Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie (Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft DK, AWMF) S3-Leitlinie Kolorektales Karzinom, Langversion 1.1, 2014. Available: [Accessed 06 Sep 2015].
    1. Monson JRT, Weiser MR, Buie WD, et al. . Practice parameters for the management of rectal cancer (revised). Dis Colon Rectum 2013;56:535–50. 10.1097/DCR.0b013e31828cb66c
    1. Garg PK, Goel A, Sharma S, et al. . Protective diversion stoma in low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Visc Med 2019;35:156–60. 10.1159/000497168
    1. Chow A, Tilney HS, Paraskeva P, et al. . The morbidity surrounding reversal of defunctioning ileostomies: a systematic review of 48 studies including 6,107 cases. Int J Colorectal Dis 2009;24:711–23. 10.1007/s00384-009-0660-z
    1. Phatak UR, Kao LS, You YN, et al. . Impact of ileostomy-related complications on the multidisciplinary treatment of rectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2014;21:507–12. 10.1245/s10434-013-3287-9
    1. Keane C, Sharma P, Yuan L, et al. . Impact of temporary ileostomy on long-term quality of life and bowel function: a systematic review and meta-analysis. ANZ J Surg 2020;90:687–92. 10.1111/ans.15552
    1. Sacchi M, Legge PD, Picozzi P, et al. . Virtual ileostomy following tme and primary sphincter-saving reconstruction for rectal cancer. Hepatogastroenterology 2007;54:1676–8.
    1. Marrosu A, Serventi F, Pulighe F, et al. . The "virtual ileostomy" in elective colorectal surgery: is it useful? Tech Coloproctol 2014;18:319–20. 10.1007/s10151-012-0964-9
    1. Miccini M, Amore Bonapasta S, Gregori M, et al. . Ghost ileostomy: real and potential advantages. Am J Surg 2010;200:e55–7. 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2009.12.017
    1. Mori L, Vita M, Razzetta F, et al. . Ghost ileostomy in anterior resection for rectal carcinoma: is it worthwhile? Dis Colon Rectum 2013;56:29–34. 10.1097/DCR.0b013e3182716ca1
    1. Morales-Conde S, Alarcón I, Yang T, et al. . A Decalogue to avoid routine ileostomy in selected patients with border line risk to develop anastomotic leakage after minimally invasive Low-Anterior resection: a pilot study. Surg Innov 2020;27:44–53. 10.1177/1553350619890720
    1. Palumbo P, Usai S, Pansa A, et al. . Anastomotic leakage in rectal surgery: role of the ghost ileostomy. Anticancer Res 2019;39:2975–83. 10.21873/anticanres.13429
    1. Cerroni M, Cirocchi R, Morelli U, et al. . Ghost ileostomy with or without abdominal parietal split. World J Surg Oncol 2011;9:92. 10.1186/1477-7819-9-92
    1. Gullà N, Trastulli S, Boselli C, et al. . Ghost ileostomy after anterior resection for rectal cancer: a preliminary experience. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2011;396:997–1007. 10.1007/s00423-011-0793-8
    1. Mari FS, Di Cesare T, Novi L, et al. . Does ghost ileostomy have a role in the laparoscopic rectal surgery era? A randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 2015;29:2590–7. 10.1007/s00464-014-3974-z
    1. Baloyiannis I, Perivoliotis K, Diamantis A, et al. . Virtual ileostomy in elective colorectal surgery: a systematic review of the literature. Tech Coloproctol 2020;24:23–31. 10.1007/s10151-019-02127-2
    1. McCulloch P, Altman DG, Campbell WB, et al. . No surgical innovation without evaluation: the ideal recommendations. Lancet 2009;374:1105–12. 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61116-8
    1. McCulloch P, Cook JA, Altman DG, et al. . Ideal framework for surgical innovation 1: the idea and development stages. BMJ 2013;346:f3012. 10.1136/bmj.f3012
    1. Whitehead AL, Julious SA, Cooper CL, et al. . Estimating the sample size for a pilot randomised trial to minimise the overall trial sample size for the external pilot and main trial for a continuous outcome variable. Stat Methods Med Res 2016;25:1057–73. 10.1177/0962280215588241
    1. Slankamenac K, Graf R, Barkun J, et al. . The comprehensive complication index: a novel continuous scale to measure surgical morbidity. Ann Surg 2013;258:1–7. 10.1097/SLA.0b013e318296c732
    1. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P-A. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 2004;240:205–13. 10.1097/
    1. Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Acute Kidney Injury Work Group KDIGO clinical practice guideline for acute kidney injury. Kidney inter 2012:1–138.
    1. National Healthcare Safety Network Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Surgical site infection (SSI) event 2017. Available: [Accessed 16 Feb 2020].
    1. Jorge JM, Wexner SD. Etiology and management of fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 1993;36:77–97. 10.1007/BF02050307
    1. Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, et al. . The European organization for research and treatment of cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993;85:365–76. 10.1093/jnci/85.5.365
    1. Gujral S, Conroy T, Fleissner C, et al. . Assessing quality of life in patients with colorectal cancer: an update of the EORTC quality of life questionnaire. Eur J Cancer 2007;43:1564–73. 10.1016/j.ejca.2007.04.005
    1. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, et al. . Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 2009;42:377–81. 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010
    1. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, et al. . CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 2010;340:c332. 10.1136/bmj.c332
    1. Probst P, Zaschke S, Heger P, et al. . Evidence-based recommendations for blinding in surgical trials. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2019;404:273–84. 10.1007/s00423-019-01761-6
    1. Chan A-W, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, et al. . Spirit 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Ann Intern Med 2013;158:200–7. 10.7326/0003-4819-158-3-201302050-00583
    1. World Medical Association World Medical association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA 2013;310:2191–4. 10.1001/jama.2013.281053
    1. Herrle F, Sandra-Petrescu F, Weiss C, et al. . Quality of life and timing of stoma closure in patients with rectal cancer undergoing low anterior resection with diverting stoma: a multicenter longitudinal observational study. Dis Colon Rectum 2016;59:281–90. 10.1097/DCR.0000000000000545
    1. Schiergens TS, Hoffmann V, Schobel TN, et al. . Long-term quality of life of patients with permanent end ileostomy: results of a nationwide cross-sectional survey. Dis Colon Rectum 2017;60:51–60. 10.1097/DCR.0000000000000732

Source: PubMed

3
Abonnieren