Literature DB >> 18095033

Morbidity of ostomy takedown.

Andreas M Kaiser1, Shlomo Israelit, Daniel Klaristenfeld, Paul Selvindoss, Petar Vukasin, Glenn Ault, Robert W Beart.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Creation of a temporary ostomy is a surgical tool to divert stool from a more distal area of concern (anastomosis, inflammation, etc). To provide a true benefit, the morbidity/mortality from the ostomy takedown itself should be minimal. The aim of our study was therefore to evaluate our own experience and determine the complications and mortality of stoma closure in relation to the type and location of the respective ostomy.
METHODS: Patients undergoing an elective takedown of a temporary ostomy at our teaching institution between January 1999 and July 2005 were included in our analysis, and the medical records were retrospectively reviewed. Excluded were only patients with relevant chart deficiencies and nonelective stoma revisions/takedowns. Data collected included general demographics; the type and location of the stoma; the operative technique; and the type, timing, and impact of complications. Perioperative morbidity was defined as complications occurring within 30 days from the operation.
RESULTS: 156 patients (median age 45 years, range 18-85) were included in the analysis: 31 loop and 59 end colostomy reversals and 56 loop and 10 end ileostomy takedowns. Mean follow-up was 6 months. The overall mortality rate was low (0.65%, 1/156 patients). However, the morbidity rate was 36.5% (57 patients), with 6 (3.8%) systemic complications and 51 (32.7%) local complications. Minor would infection (34 patients, 21.8%) and postoperative ileus (9 patients, 5.7%) were the most common surgery-related complications, but they generally resolved with conservative management. Anastomotic leak and formation/persistence of an enterocutaneous fistula (6 patients, 3.8%) were the most serious local complications and required reintervention in all of the patients. Closure of a loop colostomy accounted for half and Hartmann reversals for one third of these complications, as opposed to ileostomy takedowns, which accounted for only one sixth (1.8% absolute risk).
CONCLUSION: Takedown of a temporary ostomy has a low mortality but a nonnegligible morbidity. The stoma location (large vs. small bowel) has a higher impact than the type of stoma construction (end vs. loop) on the incidence and severity of complications.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 18095033     DOI: 10.1007/s11605-007-0457-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg        ISSN: 1091-255X            Impact factor:   3.452


  22 in total

Review 1.  Surgical results of total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer in a specialised colorectal unit.

Authors:  KokSun Ho; Francis Seow-Choen
Journal:  Recent Results Cancer Res       Date:  2005

2.  A defunctioning ileostomy does not prevent clinical anastomotic leak after a low anterior resection: a prospective, comparative study.

Authors:  N Y Wong; K W Eu
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 4.585

3.  The high morbidity of colostomy closure after trauma: further support for the primary repair of colon injuries.

Authors:  J D Berne; G C Velmahos; L S Chan; J A Asensio; D Demetriades
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  1998-02       Impact factor: 3.982

4.  Improving outcomes following penetrating colon wounds: application of a clinical pathway.

Authors:  Preston R Miller; Timothy C Fabian; Martin A Croce; Louis J Magnotti; F Elizabeth Pritchard; Gayle Minard; Ronald M Stewart
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 12.969

5.  Penetrating colon injuries requiring resection: diversion or primary anastomosis? An AAST prospective multicenter study.

Authors:  D Demetriades; J A Murray; L Chan; C Ordoñez; D Bowley; K K Nagy; E E Cornwell; G C Velmahos; N Muñoz; C Hatzitheofilou; C W Schwab; A Rodriguez; C Cornejo; K A Davis; N Namias; D H Wisner; R R Ivatury; E E Moore; J A Acosta; K I Maull; M H Thomason; D A Spain
Journal:  J Trauma       Date:  2001-05

6.  Influence of a defunctioning stoma on leakage rates after low colorectal anastomosis and colonic J pouch-anal anastomosis.

Authors:  N Dehni; R D Schlegel; C Cunningham; M Guiguet; E Tiret; R Parc
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  1998-08       Impact factor: 6.939

7.  The morbidity of penetrating colon injury.

Authors:  Eileen M Bulger; Kerry McMahon; Gregory J Jurkovich
Journal:  Injury       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 2.586

8.  Anterior resection for rectal cancer with mesorectal excision: a prospective evaluation of 622 patients.

Authors:  Wai Lun Law; Kin Wah Chu
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 12.969

Review 9.  Reversal of Hartmann's procedure: effect of timing and technique on ease and safety.

Authors:  J O Keck; B T Collopy; P J Ryan; R Fink; J R Mackay; R J Woods
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  1994-03       Impact factor: 4.585

10.  Defunctioning loop ileostomy: a prospective audit.

Authors:  G C O'Toole; J M Hyland; D C Grant; M K Barry
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 6.113

View more
  34 in total

1.  Sutureless primary repair of colonic perforation with a degradable stent in a porcine model of fecal peritonitis.

Authors:  Kun Liu; Hong Yu; Minghui Zhang; Yichen Yu; Yifan Wang; Xiujun Cai
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2012-06-05       Impact factor: 2.571

2.  Complications of loop ileostomy closure in patients with rectal tumor.

Authors:  Takashi Akiyoshi; Yoshiya Fujimoto; Tsuyoshi Konishi; Hiroya Kuroyanagi; Masashi Ueno; Masatoshi Oya; Toshiharu Yamaguchi
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 3.352

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.  Ghost ileostomy after anterior resection for rectal cancer: a preliminary experience.

Authors:  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
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2011-04-09       Impact factor: 3.445

5.  Association between incisional surgical site infection and the type of skin closure after stoma closure.

Authors:  Shin Kobayashi; Masaaki Ito; Masanori Sugito; Akihiro Kobayashi; Yusuke Nishizawa; Norio Saito
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2011-07-12       Impact factor: 2.549

Review 6.  Role of protective stoma in low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Sheng-Wen Wu; Cong-Chao Ma; Yu Yang
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-12-21       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 7.  Systematic review and meta-analysis of incisional hernia post-reversal of ileostomy.

Authors:  F De Haes; N L Bullen; G A Antoniou; N J Smart; S A Antoniou
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2019-05-09       Impact factor: 4.739

8.  Assessing trends in laparoscopic colostomy reversal and evaluating outcomes when compared to open procedures.

Authors:  Kevin Y Pei; Kimberly A Davis; Yawei Zhang
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-07-19       Impact factor: 4.584

9.  Anastomotic Leakage After Stoma Reversal Combined with Incisional Hernia Repair.

Authors:  Niklas N Baastrup; Morten F S Hartwig; Peter-Martin Krarup; Lars N Jorgensen; Kristian K Jensen
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2019-04       Impact factor: 3.352

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.