الفهرس 
Aim of the WorkOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 78 |  |  |
| | | from | 78 | | |
Abstract
Colorectal cancer is the third leading cause of cancer deaths in the US
and the third most common cancer worldwide. Most rectal cancer patients
were old. According to the National Cancer Institute (NCI) statistics, Egypt
has a greater prevalence among younger populations than elsewhere.
Due to advances in low rectal cancer care, more patients are receiving
sphincter-saving therapy. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, stapling,
laparoscopic, TaTME, and robotic procedures are examples. Despite
improvements in rectal cancer surgery, anastomotic leak rates remain
between 10 and 15%. Leakage can be fatal.
Intestinal anastomoses are often created during rectal cancer surgery
and covering ileostomy. This reduces the deleterious effects of anastomotic
leakage. A covering ileostomy reduces anastomotic leakages, according to a
Cochrane Collaboration study. Urgent reoperation decreased.
Despite its benefits, it lowers the patient’s quality of life and causes
skin issues, fluid and electrolyte imbalances, and parastomal hernia. In cases
where the intestinal anastomosis may be compromised, covering ileostomy
is advised.
Anastamotic abnormalities, anastomosis under tension, recent pelvic
irradiation, ultralow anastomosis, patients over 70, and severe co-morbidities
indicate a serious situation. The closing time of an ileostomy device is
debatable and varies by institution.
Early closure of the temporary loop ileostomy may reduce stoma
morbidity and pain, but it can cause wound infection and technical issues.
This study compares early and delayed stoma closure after lower
anterior ressection for rectal cancer in terms of safety, leakage risk, and
hospital stay.
This study showed that
Our study showed that there was no statistically significant difference
between the two studied groups regarding age, sex, comorbidities
prevalence and site and staging of tumor
Regarding operative data, our study showed that no statistically
significant difference was detected between both groups in type of
surgery, anastomosis and operative time.
As demonstrated in our study, there was no statistically significant
difference between the two groups regarding complications
Our study showed that both groups were followed up for 12 months
postoperatively, showing slightly increased quality of life score in
patients subjected to early closure than those subjected to delayed
closure, with a mean of 102.13 ± 8.61 vs 96.81 ± 8.77 respectively after
2 months, 107 ± 7.38 vs 102.5 ± 6.18 after 6 months and 109.56 ± 5.74
vs 108.19 ± 4.64 after 12 months.
Based on the results of simple and multiple regression analysis, none of
the included factors was significantly associated with quality of life
score 12 months postoperatively
Likewise in multiple regression analysis, patients subjected to delayed
closure had slightly lower quality of life score after 2 and 6 months than
those subjected to early closure.