BACKGROUND: The present study evaluated outcomes of patients undergoing proximal diversion using either a loop ileostomy or loop colostomy following distal colorectal resection for malignant and non-malignant disease. METHODS: A literature search of the Medline, Ovid, Embase and Cochrane databases was performed to identify studies published between 1966 and 2006, comparing loop ileostomy and loop colostomy to protect a distal colorectal anastomosis. A random effect meta-analytical technique was used and sensitivity analysis performed on studies published since 2000, higher quality papers, those reporting on 70 or more patients, and those reporting outcomes following colorectal cancer resections. RESULTS: Seven studies, including three randomised controlled trials, satisfied the inclusion criteria. Outcomes of a total of 1,204 patients were analysed, of whom 719 (59.7%) underwent defunctioning loop ileostomy. High stoma output was more common following ileostomy formation (OR = 5.39, 95% CI: 1.11, 26.12, P = 0.04), but wound infections following their reversal were significantly fewer (OR = 0.21, 95% CI: 0.07, 0.62, P = 0.004). Overall complications were less frequent for ileostomy patients in the subgroup of high quality studies (OR = 0.22, 95% CI: 0.08, 0.59, P = 0.003). CONCLUSION: The results of this meta-analysis suggest that ileostomy may be preferable to colostomy when used to defunction a distal colorectal anastomosis. Wound infections following stoma reversal were reduced, as were overall stoma-related complications and incisional hernia following stoma reversal for ileostomy patients in high quality studies.
BACKGROUND: The present study evaluated outcomes of patients undergoing proximal diversion using either a loop ileostomy or loop colostomy following distal colorectal resection for malignant and non-malignant disease. METHODS: A literature search of the Medline, Ovid, Embase and Cochrane databases was performed to identify studies published between 1966 and 2006, comparing loop ileostomy and loop colostomy to protect a distal colorectal anastomosis. A random effect meta-analytical technique was used and sensitivity analysis performed on studies published since 2000, higher quality papers, those reporting on 70 or more patients, and those reporting outcomes following colorectal cancer resections. RESULTS: Seven studies, including three randomised controlled trials, satisfied the inclusion criteria. Outcomes of a total of 1,204 patients were analysed, of whom 719 (59.7%) underwent defunctioning loop ileostomy. High stoma output was more common following ileostomy formation (OR = 5.39, 95% CI: 1.11, 26.12, P = 0.04), but wound infections following their reversal were significantly fewer (OR = 0.21, 95% CI: 0.07, 0.62, P = 0.004). Overall complications were less frequent for ileostomy patients in the subgroup of high quality studies (OR = 0.22, 95% CI: 0.08, 0.59, P = 0.003). CONCLUSION: The results of this meta-analysis suggest that ileostomy may be preferable to colostomy when used to defunction a distal colorectal anastomosis. Wound infections following stoma reversal were reduced, as were overall stoma-related complications and incisional hernia following stoma reversal for ileostomy patients in high quality studies.
Authors: K C M J Peeters; R A E M Tollenaar; C A M Marijnen; E Klein Kranenbarg; W H Steup; T Wiggers; H J Rutten; C J H van de Velde Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: Kenneth G Walker; Stephen W Bell; Matthew J F X Rickard; Daniel Mehanna; Owen F Dent; Pierre H Chapuis; E Leslie Bokey Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Christian D Klink; Kosta Lioupis; Marcel Binnebösel; Daniel Kaemmer; Ivanna Kozubek; Jochen Grommes; Ulf P Neumann; Marc Jansen; Stefan Willis Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2011-01-11 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Ewan MacDermid; Christopher J Young; Susan J Moug; Robert G Anderson; Heather L Shepherd Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2017-04-25 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Bryan Joost Marinus van de Wall; Werner A Draaisma; Esther S Schouten; Ivo A M J Broeders; Esther C J Consten Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 3.452