Prophylactic ileostomy versus nonprophylactic ileostomy in laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer (PILLAR): a prospective, multicenter, cohort study in China
Open Access
- 16 December 2025
- journal article
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in International Journal of Surgery
- Vol. 112 (4) , 9680-9691
Abstract
Introduction: The role of prophylactic ileostomy (PI) and its potential to reduce the risk of postoperative complications such as anastomotic leakage remains unclear. Methods: The PILLAR study (2018–2020, China, 17 centers) prospectively compared PI versus nonprophylactic ileostomy (NPI) in patients undergoing laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer. The primary endpoint was the anastomotic leakage rate. Secondary endpoints included postoperative complications, leakage management/outcomes, and leakage-associated risk factors. Results: A prospective study was conducted to gather data from 728 patients who underwent laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer, 192 (26.4%) of whom underwent PI. Seven cases of anastomotic leakage were observed in the PI group (3.6%) and 25 cases were observed in the NPI group (4.7%). Statistical analysis revealed no significant difference in the incidence of anastomotic leakage between the two groups. Moreover, the total complication rates were 17.2% in the PI group and 10.3% in the NPI group ( P = 0.012). However, the patients with anastomotic leakage in the NPI group had more severe abdominal infections, as evidenced by the C-reactive protein (CRP) values on postoperative day 5 (184.1 ± 72.2 and 77.2 ± 17.0 mg/L in the NPI and PI groups, respectively) ( P < 0.001). Patients’ postoperative procalcitonin (PCT) values similarly support this conclusion. Notably, despite this difference in infection severity, there was no statistically significant difference in the treatment or outcomes of patients with anastomotic leakage in either group. Furthermore, male sex and CRP levels on the fifth postoperative day are identified as independent risk factors for anastomotic leakage. Conclusions: PI may have failed to decrease the incidence of anastomotic leakage in patients who underwent laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer. Given the higher complication rate associated with PI, its use as a preventive measure for patients at risk of anastomotic leakage should be carefully considered.Keywords
This publication has 32 references indexed in Scilit:
- Robot-assisted Versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal CancerAnnals of Surgery, 2018
- Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer: A meta-analysis of classic randomized controlled trials and high-quality Nonrandomized Studies in the last 5 yearsInternational Journal of Surgery, 2017
- Diverting ileostomy versus no diversion after low anterior resection for rectal cancer: A prospective, randomized, multicenter trialSurgery, 2016
- Diverting ileostomy in laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: high price of protectionSurgical Endoscopy, 2016
- Risk Factors for Anastomotic Leakage After Intersphincteric Resection Without a Protective Defunctioning Stoma for Lower Rectal CancerAnnals of Surgical Oncology, 2015
- Role of diversion ileostomy in low rectal cancer: A randomized controlled trialInternational Journal of Surgery, 2014
- Multicenter Analysis of Risk Factors for Anastomotic Leakage After Laparoscopic Rectal Cancer ExcisionAnnals of Surgery, 2013
- Risk Factors for Anastomotic Leakage After Anterior Resection for Rectal CancerJAMA Surgery, 2013
- Loop ileostomy following anterior resection: is it really temporary?Colorectal Disease, 2010
- Quality of Life after Low Anterior Resection and Temporary Loop IleostomyDiseases of the Colon & Rectum, 2008