Loop ileostomy versus loop colostomy as temporary deviation after anterior resection for rectal cancer

被引:15
|
作者
Prassas, Dimitrios [1 ,2 ]
Vossos, Vasileios [1 ,2 ]
Rehders, Alexander [1 ,2 ]
Knoefel, Wolfram Trudo [1 ,2 ]
Krieg, Andreas [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Heinrich Heine Univ, Dept Surg, A Moorenstr 5, D-40225 Dusseldorf, Germany
[2] Univ Hosp Duesseldorf, A Moorenstr 5, D-40225 Dusseldorf, Germany
关键词
Protective ostomy; Loop ileostomy; Loop colostomy; Diversion stoma; ANASTOMOTIC LEAKAGE; SURGICAL COMPLICATIONS; RENAL-FAILURE; RISK-FACTORS; READMISSION; MORBIDITY; STOMA; DEHYDRATION; CARCINOMA; COHORT;
D O I
10.1007/s00423-020-01940-w
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Purpose Construction of a temporary stoma is a common adjunct to low anterior resection for rectal cancer and can be accomplished either with loop ileostomy (LI) or loop colostomy (LC) with the question of the most appropriate one still remaining controversial. The aim of this study is to compare stoma-related morbidity between the two groups. Methods A retrospective review was conducted including 148 consecutive patients (LI: 55/LC: 93) who underwent anterior resection for rectal cancer between January 2004 and December 2018 in our department. Time interval between low anterior resection and stoma reversal was similar for both groups. Comparison between the two groups was made regarding stoma-related morbidity after stoma construction and after stoma reversal, respectively. Results A total number of 17 patients suffered from complications after the construction of a protective LI compared with 25 patients after the construction of a LC (LI vs LC: 17/55 (30.1%) vs 25/93 (26.9%);p = 0.59). The most common morbidity noted in both groups before stoma closure was parastomal hernia, with the difference being statistically not significant (LI vs LC: 11/55 (20%) vs 21/93 (22.6%);p = 0.84). However, patients with LI suffered from significantly more peristomal skin irritations compared with the patients with LC (LI vs LC: 5/55 (9.1%) vs 1/93 (1.1%);p = 0.027). Overall morbidity rate after stoma closure was found to be comparable in both groups (LI vs LC: 7/37 (18.9%) vs 6/64 (9.4%);p = 0.16). The most common complication after stoma reversal was wound infection (LI vs LC: 5/37 (13.5%) vs 5/64 (7.8%);p = 0.49). Conclusion With the exception of a higher rate of skin irritation after LI construction, all other postoperative outcomes were found to be comparable in both study groups. Further randomized clinical trials are required to verify these findings. The study was registered in the German Registry for Clinical Trials (DRKS00020766, date of registration: 11.02.2020).
引用
收藏
页码:1147 / 1153
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Loop ileostomy versus loop colostomy for fecal diversion after colorectal or coloanal anastomosis: a meta-analysis
    F. Rondelli
    P. Reboldi
    A. Rulli
    F. Barberini
    A. Guerrisi
    L. Izzo
    A. Bolognese
    P. Covarelli
    C. Boselli
    C. Becattini
    G. Noya
    International Journal of Colorectal Disease, 2009, 24 : 479 - 488
  • [22] Loop ileostomy versus loop colostomy for fecal diversion after colorectal or coloanal anastomosis: a meta-analysis
    Rondelli, F.
    Reboldi, P.
    Rulli, A.
    Barberini, F.
    Guerrisi, A.
    Izzo, L.
    Bolognese, A.
    Covarelli, P.
    Boselli, C.
    Becattini, C.
    Noya, G.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COLORECTAL DISEASE, 2009, 24 (05) : 479 - 488
  • [23] Morbidity related to defunctioning loop ileostomy in low anterior resection
    Akesson, Oscar
    Syk, Ingvar
    Lindmark, Gudrun
    Buchwald, Pamela
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COLORECTAL DISEASE, 2012, 27 (12) : 1619 - 1623
  • [24] Dysfunctional loop ileostomy after low anterior resection for rectal cancer in the presence of Meckel's diverticulum: A case report
    Spiridakis K.G.
    Sfakianakis E.E.
    Flamourakis M.E.
    Theodoros M.C.
    Rahmanis E.K.
    Polychronaki E.M.
    Kostakis G.E.
    Papadakis T.G.
    Hristodoulakis M.S.
    Journal of Medical Case Reports, 9 (1)
  • [25] Diverting ileostomy versus no diversion after low anterior resection for rectal cancer: A prospective, randomized, multicenter trial
    Mrak, Karl
    Uranitsch, Stefan
    Pedross, Florian
    Heuberger, Andreas
    Klingler, Anton
    Jagoditsch, Michael
    Weihs, Dominik
    Eberl, Thomas
    Tschmelitsch, Joerg
    SURGERY, 2016, 159 (04) : 1129 - 1139
  • [26] Loop transverse colostomy versus loop ileostomy for defunctioning of colorectal anastomosis: a systematic review, updated conventional meta-analysis, and cumulative meta-analysis
    Gavriilidis, Paschalis
    Azoulay, Daniel
    Taflampas, Panos
    SURGERY TODAY, 2019, 49 (02) : 108 - 117
  • [27] The influence of diverting loop ileostomy vs. colostomy on postoperative morbidity in restorative anterior resection for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    A. Chudner
    M. Gachabayov
    A. Dyatlov
    H. Lee
    R. Essani
    Roberto Bergamaschi
    Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery, 2019, 404 : 129 - 139
  • [28] The influence of diverting loop ileostomy vs. colostomy on postoperative morbidity in restorative anterior resection for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Chudner, A.
    Gachabayov, M.
    Dyatlov, A.
    Lee, H.
    Essani, R.
    Bergamaschi, Roberto
    LANGENBECKS ARCHIVES OF SURGERY, 2019, 404 (02) : 129 - 139
  • [29] Readmission after rectal resection in the ERAS-era: is a loop ileostomy the Achilles heel?
    Johanna Van Butsele
    Gabriele Bislenghi
    André D’Hoore
    Albert M. Wolthuis
    BMC Surgery, 21
  • [30] Renal impairment caused by temporary loop ileostomy
    Beck-Kaltenbach, Nicole
    Voigt, Katja
    Rumstadt, Bernhard
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COLORECTAL DISEASE, 2011, 26 (05) : 623 - 626