Literature DB >> 10757379

Comparison of loop versus end ileostomy for fecal diversion after restorative proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis.

E W Fonkalsrud1, A Thakur, L Roof.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The goal of this study was to compare the benefits versus complications of temporary loop ileostomies and end ileostomies in a consecutive series of patients undergoing colectomy and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis. STUDY
DESIGN: A retrospective review was performed of all patients undergoing restorative proctocolectomy with diverting ileostomy for ulcerative colitis at the UCLA Medical Center during a 4-year period. An end ileostomy (EI) was used for 38 patients and a loop ileostomy (LI) for 39. All patients had a J pouch, with all EI patients having a hand-sewn ileoanal anastomosis, and 33 LI patients having a double-stapled anal anastomosis. EI closure was performed through a laparotomy, and LI closure was performed through a periileostomy incision.
RESULTS: The mean operative time for EI closure was 157 minutes, and for LI closure was 103 minutes. The wound infection rate after EI closure was 5.3% and after LI was 10.3%. For EI patients, 2 of 38 patients required reoperation, compared with 5 of 39 for LI. The mean hospital stay after EI closure was 6.7 days, and after LI closure was 7.1 days. Peristomal skin irritation was more severe, more prolonged, and occurred in more than twice as many LI as EI patients. Home ostomy nurse care was necessary for a mean of two visits for EI patients and five visits for LI patients. The cost ofostomy supplies and care was more than double for LI patients compared with those with EI. Patient satisfaction and ability to resume physical and social activities early after ileostomy construction were much more favorable for EI than LI patients.
CONCLUSIONS: The benefit of shorter operating time for LI closure compared with EI closure is often outweighed by the complications and costs of LI stomal care and patient dissatisfaction. EI should be considered more frequently for temporary ileal diversion after restorative proctocolectomy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10757379     DOI: 10.1016/s1072-7515(99)00295-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Coll Surg        ISSN: 1072-7515            Impact factor:   6.113


  8 in total

Review 1.  The morbidity surrounding reversal of defunctioning ileostomies: a systematic review of 48 studies including 6,107 cases.

Authors:  Andre Chow; Henry S Tilney; Paraskevas Paraskeva; Santhini Jeyarajah; Emmanouil Zacharakis; Sanjay Purkayastha
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2009-02-17       Impact factor: 2.571

Review 2.  Morbidity of loop ileostomy closure after restorative proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis and familial adenomatous polyposis: a systematic review.

Authors:  Rudolf Mennigen; Wiebke Sewald; Norbert Senninger; Emile Rijcken
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2014-09-18       Impact factor: 3.452

3.  Rod in loop ileostomy: just an insignificant detail for ileostomy-related complications?

Authors:  Marco Scarpa; Laura Sadocchi; Cesare Ruffolo; Maurizio Iacobone; Teresa Filosa; Daniela Prando; Lino Polese; Mauro Frego; Davide F D'Amico; Imerio Angriman
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2006-11-28       Impact factor: 3.445

4.  Surgical management of inflammatory bowel disease.

Authors:  M E Ba'ath; M W Mahmalat; P Kapur; N P Smith; A M Dalzell; D H Casson; G L Lamont; C T Baillie
Journal:  Arch Dis Child       Date:  2006-05-02       Impact factor: 3.791

5.  Factors related to anastomotic dehiscence and mortality after terminal stomal closure in the management of patients with severe secondary peritonitis.

Authors:  José L Martínez; Enrique Luque-de-León; Pablo Andrade
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2008-10-16       Impact factor: 3.452

6.  Impact of ileostomy-related complications on the multidisciplinary treatment of rectal cancer.

Authors:  Uma R Phatak; Lillian S Kao; Y Nancy You; Miguel A Rodriguez-Bigas; John M Skibber; Barry W Feig; Sa Nguyen; Scott B Cantor; George J Chang
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2013-10-02       Impact factor: 5.344

7.  The influence of nutritional assessment on the outcome of ostomy takedown.

Authors:  Min Sang Kim; Ho Kun Kim; Dong Yi Kim; Jae Kyun Ju
Journal:  J Korean Soc Coloproctol       Date:  2012-06-30

Review 8.  Update of complications and functional outcome of the ileo-pouch anal anastomosis: overview of evidence and meta-analysis of 96 observational studies.

Authors:  Sharonne de Zeeuw; Usama Ahmed Ali; Usama Ahmed Ali; Rogier A R T Donders; Willem E Hueting; Frederik Keus; Cees J H M van Laarhoven
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2012-01-10       Impact factor: 2.571

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.