ASSESSING QUALITY OF LIFE IN PATIENTS WITH VIRTUAL ILEOSTOMY AFTER LOW ANTERIOR RECTUM RESECTION

The paper assesses the quality of life (QoL) in patients with a virtual ileostomy after low anterior rectum resection compared to those having a permanent stoma. Thus, the article presents a single-center retro- and prospective study comprising 89 rectal cancer patients surgically treated in the Oncology Department of the Surgut District Clinical Hospital in 2018–2025. The first examined group includes 46 patients with a virtual ileostomy (VI) formed at the final surgery stage while applying the authors’ method developed at the aforementioned medical institution. The second group consists of 43 patients with a Turnbull’s loop ileostomy (LI) created during the initial surgical treatment. The patients’ quality of life is evaluated via the SF-36 survey. The first questionnaire is conducted among both groups upon admission to the hospital, i.e. prior to the surgery. The second assessment is carried out in the postoperative period: on the 10–12 day after the procedure before the virtual ileostomy parts removal among VI patients; 1–2 days before hospital discharge among those with a permanent ileostomy. The latter involves cases where a VI was replaced with a permanent stoma. Evidence from the study reveals no difference in the respondents’ preoperative quality of life. According to the Clavien-Dindo classification (CD), the LI group exhibited a statistically significant greater incidence of postoperative complications, encompassing CD I–II (p = 0.019) and parastomal complications (p = 0.013), with a rate of 18.6%, compared to the 12.2% observed in the virtual ileostomy group. The investigation does not detect any variations in the CD grade III–IV. Anastomotic leakage occurs in four VI patients (8.7%) and five LI examinees (11.6%, p = 0.734). Statistically significant differences in the respondents’ postoperative QoL are indicated using the following scales: physical functioning, role-physical functioning, bodily pain, general health, social functioning, mental health.

1. Рак прямой кишки: клинич. рекомендации. М., 2025. URL: https://clck.ru/3Tpej2 (дата обращения: 16.01.2026).

2. Ayik C., Ozden D., Cenan D. Relationships among spiritual wellbeing, adjustment, and quality of life in patients with a stoma: A cross-sectional, descriptive study // Wound Management & Prevention. 2019. Vol. 65, no. 5. P. 40–47.

3. Wuletaw Chan Zewude, Tilahun Derese, Yisihak Suga et al. Quality of life in patients living with stoma // Ethiopian Journal of Health Sciences. 2021. Vol. 31, no. 5. https://doi.org/10.4314/ejhs.v31i5.11.

4. Herzberg J., Khadem S., Begemann V. et al. Quality of life in patients with rectal resections and end-to-end primary anastomosis using a standardized perioperative pathway // Frontiers in Surgery. 2022. Vol. 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2021.789251.

5. 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. Vol. 30, no. 4. P. 501–516. https://doi.org/10.1177/15533506231169066.

6. 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. Vol. 12, no. 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12113607.

7. D’Ambrosio F., Pappalardo C., Scardigno A. et al. Peristomal skin complications in ileostomy and colostomy patients: What we need to know from a public health perspective // International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2023. Vol. 20, no. 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20010079.

8. Ge Z., Zhao X., Liu Z. et al. Complications of preventive loop ileostomy versus colostomy: A meta-analysis, trial sequential analysis and systematic review // BMC Surgery. 2023. Vol. 23, no. 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-023-02129-w.

9. Matsumoto Y., Aisu N., Kajitani R. et al. Complications associated with loop ileostomy: Analysis of risk factors // Techniques in Coloproctology. 2024. Vol. 28, no. 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-024-02926-2.

10. Shi V., McKechnie T., Anant S. et al. The impact of preoperative stoma education on postoperative outcomes for patients with new stomas after colorectal surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis // Techniques in Coloproctology. 2025. Vol. 29, no. 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-025-03213-4.

11. Mathew A. P., M S., K C. et al. Morbidity of temporary loop ileostomy in patients with colorectal cancer // Indian Journal of Surgical Oncology. 2022. Vol. 13, no. 3. P. 468–473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13193-022-01501-1.

12. Хомяков Е. А., Абраменков В. Б., Рыбаков Е. Г. и др. Качество жизни пациентов с постоянной колостомой и после операций с восстановлением непрерывности кишечника (метаанализ) // Колопроктология. 2024. Т. 23, № 2. С. 161–172. https://doi.org/10.33878/2073-7556-2024-23-2-161-172.