scholarly journals Loop ileostomy versus loop transverse colostomy for temporary fecal diversion after colorectal anastomosis

2009 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 155-162
2008 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 294-303 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katia Ferreira Güenaga ◽  
Suzana Angélica Silva Lustosa ◽  
Sarhan Sydney Saad ◽  
Humberto Saconato ◽  
Delcio Matos

PURPOSE: The controversy regarding whether loop ileostomy or loop transverse colostomy is a better method for temporary decompression of colorectal anastomosis motivated this review. METHODS: Five randomized trials were included, with 334 patients: 168 in the loop ileostomy group and 166 in the loop transverse colostomy group. The outcomes analyzed were: 1. Mortality; 2. Wound infection; 3. Time of stoma formation; 4. Time of stoma closure; 5. Time interval between stoma formation and closure; 6. Stoma prolapse; 7. Stoma retraction; 8. Parastomal hernia; 9. Parastomal fistula; 10. Stenosis; 11. Necrosis; 12. Skin irritation; 13. Ileus; 14. Bowel leakage; 15. Reoperation; 16. Patient adaptation; 17. Length of hospital stay; 18. Colorectal anastomotic dehiscence; 19. Incisional hernia; 20. Postoperative bowel obstruction. RESULTS: Stoma prolapse was statistically significant (p = 0.00001), but with statistical heterogeneity; the sensitive analysis was applied, excluding the trials that included emergency surgery, and this showed: p = 0.02, with I² = 0% for the heterogeneity test. CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes reported were not statistically or clinically significant except for stoma prolapse. Better evidence for making the choice between loop ileostomy or loop colostomy requires large-scale randomized controlled trials.


2009 ◽  
Vol 24 (5) ◽  
pp. 479-488 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. Rondelli ◽  
P. Reboldi ◽  
A. Rulli ◽  
F. Barberini ◽  
A. Guerrisi ◽  
...  

1986 ◽  
Vol 73 (7) ◽  
pp. 566-570 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. S. Williams ◽  
D. G. Nasmyth ◽  
D. Jones ◽  
A. H. Smith

1994 ◽  
Vol 167 (5) ◽  
pp. 519-522 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert E.H. Khoo ◽  
Max M. Cohen ◽  
Georgina M. Chapman ◽  
Daryl A. Jenken ◽  
James M. Langevin

2001 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 274-278 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric Rullier ◽  
Nathalie Le Toux ◽  
Christophe Laurent ◽  
Jean-Luc Garrelon ◽  
Michel Parneix ◽  
...  

2008 ◽  
Vol 55 (3) ◽  
pp. 67-71 ◽  
Author(s):  
Z. Krivokapic ◽  
S. Bilali

Objective: Low pelvic anastomoses are associated with a high leak rate. Loop ileostomies are commonly performed during ileoanal and coloanal anastomoses. This study was undertaken to review our experience with loop ileostomy closure after low anterior rectal resection and restorative proctocolectomy. Patients and methods: One hundred sixty five patients undergoing loop ileostomy closure at a single institution after coloanal and ileoanal anastomoses for rectal carcinoma (n=148) ulcerative colitis (n=9) and FAP (n=8) from January 2003 to December 2006. Fecal diversion was maintained for a mean 13,5 weeks. Results: Of the 165 patients, 100 were male and 65 female with mean age 59 (range 23-83 years). Overall, complication rate was 10,9 per cent. The common complication were sub occlusion six patients, occlusion three patients, wound infection eight patients and abdominal sepsis one patient. Complications required operative management in four cases. There was no mortality related to ileostomy. Conclusion: The study shown that ileostomy closure is a safe and effective with generally minor complications and should be considered as a safe alterative for fecal diversion.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document