Literature DB >> 15665539

A prospective audit of the complications of loop ileostomy construction and takedown.

S A García-Botello1, J García-Armengol, E García-Granero, A Espí, C Juan, F López-Mozos, S Lledó.   

Abstract

AIM: A prospective review of the complications of ileostomy construction and takedown.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred twenty-seven consecutive patients undergoing construction of a loop ileostomy were included in a prospective nonrandomized computer database. Complications of the loop ileostomy were assessed prior to and after closure. Three closure techniques were performed [enterotomy suture (25.7%), resection and hand sewn (31.2%) or stapled anastomosis (43.1%)] and compared.
RESULTS: One hundred twenty-seven (73 male, 54 female) patients, mean age 54 years were included from 1992 to 2002. Seventy-two patients underwent anterior resection for low rectal carcinoma, 30 an ileoanal pouch for ulcerative colitis and 25 for miscellaneous conditions. Fifty-nine pre-takedown complications occurred in 50 (39.4%) patients. The most common were dermatitis (12.6%) and erythema (7.1%). The most severe were dehydration in 1 patient and stomal prolapse in 4 patients. Closure was associated with a complication rate of 33.1% and a mortality rate of 0.9%. Wound infection occurred in 18.3% and small bowel obstruction in 4.6%. Anastomotic leak requiring reanastomosis occurred in 2.8% and enterocutaneous fistula treated conservatively in 5.5%. There were no statistically significant differences in morbidity between closure techniques (p = 0.892). There were no statistically significant differences in complications (p = 0.516) between patients with ulcerative colitis and those with neoplasia (39.29% vs. 32.2%).
CONCLUSIONS: Loop ileostomy construction and takedown is associated with considerable morbidity, mostly minor. No differences exist between technique used for closure or the baseline pathology of the patient. Copyright 2004 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15665539     DOI: 10.1159/000083471

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dig Surg        ISSN: 0253-4886            Impact factor:   2.588


  36 in total

1.  Loop ileostomy closure after laparoscopic versus open surgery: is there a difference?

Authors:  Art Hiranyakas; Assar Rather; Giovanna da Silva; Eric G Weiss; Steven D Wexner
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-06-30       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Iieostomy efferent limb prolapse: a temporising measure.

Authors:  B R Dodd; K Mccallion
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 1.891

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.  A temporary loop ileostomy affects renal function.

Authors:  Bodil Gessler; Eva Haglind; Eva Angenete
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2014-07-17       Impact factor: 2.571

5.  The use of purse-string skin closure in loop ileostomy reversals leads to lower wound infection rates--a single high-volume centre experience.

Authors:  Nils Habbe; Sabine Hannes; Juliane Liese; Guido Woeste; Wolf Otto Bechstein; Christoph Strey
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2014-01-10       Impact factor: 2.571

6.  Postoperative complications after closure of a diverting ileostoma--differences according to closure technique.

Authors:  Kajsa Gustavsson; Ulf Gunnarsson; Pia Jestin
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2011-08-16       Impact factor: 2.571

7.  Comparison of surgical techniques for stoma closure: A retrospective study of purse-string skin closure versus conventional skin closure following ileostomy and colostomy reversal.

Authors:  Yuma Wada; Norikatsu Miyoshi; Masayuki Ohue; Shingo Noura; Shiki Fujino; Keijirou Sugimura; Hirofumi Akita; Masaaki Motoori; Kunihito Gotoh; Hidenori Takahashi; Shogo Kobayashi; Takeshi Ohmori; Yoshiyuki Fujiwara; Masahiko Yano
Journal:  Mol Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-02-06

Review 8.  Avoidance and management of stomal complications.

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

9.  Stapled ileostomy closure results in reduction of postoperative morbidity.

Authors:  Y A Shelygin; S V Chernyshov; E G Rybakov
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2009-12-15       Impact factor: 3.781

10.  Postoperative readmissions following ileostomy formation among patients with a gynecologic malignancy.

Authors:  Michelle A Glasgow; Kristin Shields; Rachel Isaksson Vogel; Deanna Teoh; Peter A Argenta
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2014-06-14       Impact factor: 5.482

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.