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
  • [31] Meta-analysis of temporary loop ileostomy closure during or after adjuvant chemotherapy following rectal cancer resection: the dilemma remains
    Hajibandeh, Shahin
    Hajibandeh, Shahab
    Sarma, Diwakar Ryali
    East, Jamie
    Zaman, Shafquat
    Mankotia, Rajnish
    Thompson, Christopher Vaun
    Torrance, Andrew W.
    Peravali, Rajeev
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COLORECTAL DISEASE, 2019, 34 (07) : 1151 - 1159
  • [32] Closure of Temporary Ileostomy 2 Versus 12 Weeks After Rectal Resection for Cancer A Word of Caution From a Prospective, Randomized Controlled Multicenter Trial
    Elsner, Andreas T.
    Brosi, Philippe
    Walensi, Mikolaj
    Uhlmann, Michael
    Egger, Bernhard
    Glaser, Christine
    Maurer, Christoph A.
    DISEASES OF THE COLON & RECTUM, 2021, 64 (11) : 1398 - 1406
  • [33] Ghost ileostomy versus conventional loop ileostomy in patients undergoing low anterior resection for rectal cancer (DRKS00013997): protocol for a randomised controlled trial
    Huettner, Felix J.
    Probst, Pascal
    Mihaljevic, Andre
    Contin, Pietro
    Doerr-Harim, Colette
    Ulrich, Alexis
    Schneider, Martin
    Buechler, Markus W.
    Diener, Markus K.
    Knebel, Phillip
    BMJ OPEN, 2020, 10 (10):
  • [34] Loop ostomy following laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy
    Wu, Xin
    Lin, Guole
    Qiu, Huizhong
    Xiao, Yi
    Wu, Bin
    Zhong, Miner
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL RESEARCH, 2018, 23
  • [35] Role and Morbidity of Protective Ileostomy after Anterior Resection for Rectal Cancer: One Centre Experience and Review of Literature
    Coco, Claudio
    Tondolo, Vincenzo
    Amodio, Luca Emanuele
    Pafundi, Donato Paolo
    Marzi, Federica
    Rizzo, Gianluca
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE, 2023, 12 (23)
  • [36] An evaluation of whether neoadjuvant therapy delays closure of defunctioning loop ileostomy following anterior resection for rectal cancer
    Bhangu, A.
    Tiramula, P.
    MINERVA CHIRURGICA, 2011, 66 (01) : 49 - 54
  • [37] Risk Factors of Permanent Stomas in Patients with Rectal Cancer after Low Anterior Resection with Temporary Stomas
    Lee, Chul Min
    Huh, Jung Wook
    Park, Yoon Ah
    Cho, Yong Beom
    Kim, Hee Cheol
    Yun, Seong Hyeon
    Lee, Woo Yong
    Chun, Ho-Kyung
    YONSEI MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2015, 56 (02) : 447 - 453
  • [38] Diversion stoma after colorectal surgery: loop colostomy or ileostomy?
    Klink, Christian D.
    Lioupis, Kosta
    Binneboesel, Marcel
    Kaemmer, Daniel
    Kozubek, Ivanna
    Grommes, Jochen
    Neumann, Ulf P.
    Jansen, Marc
    Willis, Stefan
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COLORECTAL DISEASE, 2011, 26 (04) : 431 - 436
  • [39] Comparison of the clinical outcomes of skin bridge loop ileostomy and traditional loop ileostomy in patients with low rectal cancer
    Ye, Hui
    Huang, Shujuan
    Yu, Jie
    Zhou, Qichang
    Xi, Changlei
    Cao, Longlei
    Wang, Peiyun
    Shen, Jie
    Gong, Zhilin
    SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, 2021, 11 (01)
  • [40] Ghost ileostomy after anterior resection for rectal cancer: a preliminary experience
    Nino Gullà
    Stefano Trastulli
    Carlo Boselli
    Roberto Cirocchi
    Davide Cavaliere
    Giorgio Maria Verdecchia
    Umberto Morelli
    Daniele Gentile
    Emilio Eugeni
    Daniela Caracappa
    Chiara Listorti
    Francesco Sciannameo
    Giuseppe Noya
    Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery, 2011, 396 : 997 - 1007