Y A Shelygin1, S V Chernyshov, E G Rybakov. 1. Department of Rectal Cancer Surgery, State Research Center of Coloproctology, Salyam Adyl st. 2, 123423, Moscow, Russia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Loop ileostomy is widely employed as a defunctioning procedure for left-sided colonic anastomoses. Closure of the stoma carries a risk of morbidity and even mortality. The aim of this prospective trial was to evaluate the ability of stapled stoma closure to decrease the rates of perioperative morbidity. METHODS:One hundred and nineteen patients (mean age 56.2 +/- 5.4 years) underwent two-stage operations for rectal carcinoma with protective loop ileostomy between 2005 and 2008. All patients were randomly divided into two groups: 56 patients had conventional ileostomy takedown, while in the other 63, a functional end-to-end anastomosis was created using a linear stapler. Groups were comparable in terms of age, gender, body mass index, and other parameters. RESULTS:Mean time of stoma closure using functional end-to-end anastomosis was 68 +/- 7, when compared to 92 +/- 11 min (P = 0.01) for conventional stoma closure. The overall morbidity rate after ileostomy closure using a stapler was 3.2%: one patient (1.6%) developed a wound infection and self-limited bleeding from the anastomotic line, while another patient (1.6%) had an ileal obstruction caused by adhesions and required additional intervention. Conventional ileostomy closure resulted in a 14.3% morbidity rate: six patients (10.7%) had prolonged ileus, 2 (3.6%) had small bowel obstruction, and 2 (3.6%) had wound infections (P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Functional end-to-end anastomosis reduces operating time and morbidity compared to conventional ileostomy takedown.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Loop ileostomy is widely employed as a defunctioning procedure for left-sided colonic anastomoses. Closure of the stoma carries a risk of morbidity and even mortality. The aim of this prospective trial was to evaluate the ability of stapled stoma closure to decrease the rates of perioperative morbidity. METHODS: One hundred and nineteen patients (mean age 56.2 +/- 5.4 years) underwent two-stage operations for rectal carcinoma with protective loop ileostomy between 2005 and 2008. All patients were randomly divided into two groups: 56 patients had conventional ileostomy takedown, while in the other 63, a functional end-to-end anastomosis was created using a linear stapler. Groups were comparable in terms of age, gender, body mass index, and other parameters. RESULTS: Mean time of stoma closure using functional end-to-end anastomosis was 68 +/- 7, when compared to 92 +/- 11 min (P = 0.01) for conventional stoma closure. The overall morbidity rate after ileostomy closure using a stapler was 3.2%: one patient (1.6%) developed a wound infection and self-limited bleeding from the anastomotic line, while another patient (1.6%) had an ileal obstruction caused by adhesions and required additional intervention. Conventional ileostomy closure resulted in a 14.3% morbidity rate: six patients (10.7%) had prolonged ileus, 2 (3.6%) had small bowel obstruction, and 2 (3.6%) had wound infections (P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Functional end-to-end anastomosis reduces operating time and morbidity compared to conventional ileostomy takedown.
Authors: S A García-Botello; J García-Armengol; E García-Granero; A Espí; C Juan; F López-Mozos; S Lledó Journal: Dig Surg Date: 2005-01-19 Impact factor: 2.588
Authors: Andreas M Kaiser; Shlomo Israelit; Daniel Klaristenfeld; Paul Selvindoss; Petar Vukasin; Glenn Ault; Robert W Beart Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2007-12-20 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Thorsten Löffler; Inga Rossion; Käthe Gooßen; Daniel Saure; Jürgen Weitz; Alexis Ulrich; Markus W Büchler; Markus K Diener Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2014-12-25 Impact factor: 3.445
Authors: Andrea Carolina Quiroga-Centeno; Kihara Alejandra Jerez-Torra; Pedro Antonio Martin-Mojica; Sergio Andrés Castañeda-Alfonso; María Emma Castillo-Sánchez; Oscar Fernando Calvo-Corredor; Sergio Alejandro Gómez-Ochoa Journal: World J Surg Date: 2020-05 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: F Ferrara; D Parini; A Bondurri; M Veltri; M Barbierato; F Pata; F Cattaneo; A Tafuri; C Forni; G Roveron; G Rizzo Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2019-10-12 Impact factor: 3.781
Authors: Anuradha R Bhama; Farwa Batool; Stacey D Collins; Jane Ferraro; Robert K Cleary Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2017-10-02 Impact factor: 3.452