Literature DB >> 12658485

Quality of life of stoma patients: temporary ileostomy versus colostomy.

Michael Anthony Silva1, Geethani Ratnayake, Kemal I Deen.   

Abstract

Ileostomy for proximal diversion as a preferred option over colostomy has been a recent topic of interest. Our study evaluated the quality of life (QOL) of patients with a temporary ileostomy and compared it with that of patients with a temporary colostomy. The QOL of 25 patients with an ileostomy (median age 42 years, range 22-76 years) was compared with that for 25 patients with a colostomy (median age 44 years, range 18-70 years). Indications for a stoma were rectal carcinoma, trauma, inflammatory bowel disease, anastomotic leak, or incontinence following an operative procedure for rectal prolapse. The study was conducted at a median of 8 weeks (range 6-16 weeks) for ileostomy patients and of 9 weeks (range 5-17 weeks) for colostomy patients following stoma creation. A self-administered structured questionnaire was used, with responses obtained for 10 QOL questions on a visual analog rating scale (0-100 mm); they were graded good (71-100), satisfactory (31-70), or poor (0-30). Altogether, 22 (88%) patients with an ileostomy, compared with 16 (64%) patients with a colostomy, were able to purchase their stomal appliances ( p = 0.09, chi(2): NS). Effluent was tolerable in 18 (72%) patients with an ileostomy compared with 7 (28%) patients with a colostomy ( p = 0.002, chi(2)). Appetite was not affected in any of the patients with an ileostomy (100%), compared with 64% of patients with a colostomy ( p = 0.002, chi(2)), travel by public transport 32% compared to 28% with colostomy (NS), dress in 20% compared to 24% with colostomy (NS), and daily activities 28% compared to 24% with colostomy (NS). Moreover, 68% with an ileostomy did not have a problem with hygiene compared with 40% with a colostomy (NS); 95% with an ileostomy abstained from sexual activity compared with 81% with a colostomy ( p = 0.21, chi(2): NS). Both ileostomy and colostomy resulted in significant QOL impairment. However, with ileostomy, the effluent was more tolerable, had less of an impact on personal hygiene, and preserved the appetite compared with colostomy. There were no differences in travel, dress, daily chores, or sexual activity between the two groups.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12658485     DOI: 10.1007/s00268-002-6699-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Surg        ISSN: 0364-2313            Impact factor:   3.352


  25 in total

1.  Out of the Loop: The Value of a Preoperative Loopogram for Colostomy Reversal in Trauma.

Authors:  Nolitha Makapi Tisetso Morare; Meshack Nkosinaye Motha; Maeyane Stephens Moeng
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2021-03-15       Impact factor: 3.352

2.  Proximal and distal rectal cancers differ in curative resectability and local recurrence.

Authors:  Wasantha Wijenayake; Mahendra Perera; Jayantha Balawardena; Raeed Deen; S Ruwan Wijesuriya; Sumudu K Kumarage; Kemal I Deen
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2011-08-27

Review 3.  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

4.  Elicitation of ostomy pouch preferences: a discrete-choice experiment.

Authors:  Ole Bonnichsen
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2011       Impact factor: 3.883

5.  A mixed-method study on the generic and ostomy-specific quality of life of cancer and non-cancer ostomy patients.

Authors:  Femke Jansen; Cornelia F van Uden-Kraan; J Annemieke Braakman; Paulina M van Keizerswaard; Birgit I Witte; Irma M Verdonck-de Leeuw
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2014-11-28       Impact factor: 3.603

6.  One-stage sigmoid colon resection for perforated sigmoid diverticulitis (Hinchey stages III and IV).

Authors:  Sven Richter; Werner Lindemann; Otto Kollmar; Georg A Pistorius; Christoph A Maurer; Martin K Schilling
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 3.352

7.  Health State Utility Values for Ileostomies and Colostomies: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Fahima Dossa; Jonathan Josse; Sergio A Acuna; Nancy N Baxter
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2018-01-23       Impact factor: 3.452

Review 8.  Avoidance and management of stomal complications.

Authors:  Michael Kwiatt; Michitaka Kawata
Journal:  Clin Colon Rectal Surg       Date:  2013-06

9.  Emergency management of diverticulitis.

Authors:  Nancy N Baxter
Journal:  Clin Colon Rectal Surg       Date:  2004-08

10.  Quality of life in stoma patients: appropriate and inappropriate stoma sites.

Authors:  B Mahjoubi; K Kiani Goodarzi; H Mohammad-Sadeghi
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 3.352

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.