PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to describe and evaluate the feasibility and the eventual advantages of ghost ileostomy (GI) versus covering stoma (CS) in terms of complications, hospital stay and quality of life of patients and their caregivers after anterior resection for rectal cancer. METHODS: In this prospective study, we included patients who had rectal cancer treated with laparotomic anterior resection and confectioning a stoma (GI or CS), in the period comprised between January 2008 and January 2009. Short-term and long-term surgery-related mortality and morbidity after primary surgery (including that stoma-related and colorectal anastomosis-related) and consequent to the intervention of intestinal recanalization (CS group) and GI closure were evaluated. We evaluated hospital stay and quality of life of patients and their caregivers. RESULTS: Stoma-related morbidity rate was higher in the CS group than in GI group (37% vs. 5.5%, respectively, P = 0.04). Morbidity rate after intestinal recanalization in the CS group was 25.9% and 0% after GI closure (P = 0.08). Overall stoma morbidity rate was significantly lower in the GI group with respect to CS group (5.5% vs. 40.7%, respectively, P = 0.03). CS group was characterized by a significantly longer recovery time (P = 0.0002). Caregivers and stoma-related quality of life were better in the GI group than in CS group (P < 0.0001 and P = 0.0005, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: GI is feasible, characterized by shorter recovery, lesser degree of total, as well as anastomosis-related morbidity and higher quality of life of patients and the caregivers in respect to CS. We suggest that GI (should be evaluated as an alternative to conventional ileostomy) could be indicated in selected patients that do not present risk factors, but require caution for anastomotic leakage for the low level of colorectal anastomosis.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to describe and evaluate the feasibility and the eventual advantages of ghost ileostomy (GI) versus covering stoma (CS) in terms of complications, hospital stay and quality of life of patients and their caregivers after anterior resection for rectal cancer. METHODS: In this prospective study, we included patients who had rectal cancer treated with laparotomic anterior resection and confectioning a stoma (GI or CS), in the period comprised between January 2008 and January 2009. Short-term and long-term surgery-related mortality and morbidity after primary surgery (including that stoma-related and colorectal anastomosis-related) and consequent to the intervention of intestinal recanalization (CS group) and GI closure were evaluated. We evaluated hospital stay and quality of life of patients and their caregivers. RESULTS: Stoma-related morbidity rate was higher in the CS group than in GI group (37% vs. 5.5%, respectively, P = 0.04). Morbidity rate after intestinal recanalization in the CS group was 25.9% and 0% after GI closure (P = 0.08). Overall stoma morbidity rate was significantly lower in the GI group with respect to CS group (5.5% vs. 40.7%, respectively, P = 0.03). CS group was characterized by a significantly longer recovery time (P = 0.0002). Caregivers and stoma-related quality of life were better in the GI group than in CS group (P < 0.0001 and P = 0.0005, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: GI is feasible, characterized by shorter recovery, lesser degree of total, as well as anastomosis-related morbidity and higher quality of life of patients and the caregivers in respect to CS. We suggest that GI (should be evaluated as an alternative to conventional ileostomy) could be indicated in selected patients that do not present risk factors, but require caution for anastomotic leakage for the low level of colorectal anastomosis.
Authors: B Lefebure; J J Tuech; V Bridoux; B Costaglioli; M Scotte; P Teniere; F Michot Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2007-09-02 Impact factor: 2.571
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: Felix J Hüttner; Pascal Probst; André Mihaljevic; Pietro Contin; Colette Dörr-Harim; Alexis Ulrich; Martin Schneider; Markus W Büchler; Markus K Diener; Phillip Knebel Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-10-15 Impact factor: 2.692