Literature DB >> 22006879

Loop ileostomy reversal after colon and rectal surgery: a single institutional 5-year experience in 944 patients.

Gaetano Luglio1, Rajesh Pendlimari, Stefan D Holubar, Robert R Cima, Heidi Nelson.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Diverting loop ileostomy is used to mitigate the sequelae of anastomotic dehiscence.
OBJECTIVE: To report the rate of complications after ileostomy reversal using standardized definitions to aid physicians who are deciding whether to divert anastomoses.
METHODS: Patients who underwent diverting loop ileostomy closure from January 1, 2005, through February 28, 2010, were identified using a prospective database. Perioperative variables and 30-day outcomes were reviewed. Complications were graded according to the Clavien-Dindo Classification, in which grade III, IV, or V represents major complications. Univariate analysis assessed the relationship between operative variables and surgical outcomes.
RESULTS: A total of 944 patients underwent reversal: 43.1% were women, the mean age was 47.2 years, the mean body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared) was 25.7, and 18.5% were American Society of Anesthesiologists class III or IV. Indications for the initial operation were ulcerative colitis (49.5%), rectal cancer (27.5%), diverticular disease (6.8%), and other (16.1%). Anastomotic technique for reversal was sutured fold-over in 466 patients (49.4%), stapled in 315 (33.4%), and handsewn end to end in 163 (17.3%). After reversal, the mean time to first bowel movement, tolerance of soft diet, and discharge from hospital was 2.6, 3.7, and 5.2 days, respectively. Handsewn cases had longer operative times and longer times to bowel movement, soft diet, and discharge. Overall, complications occurred in 203 patients (21.5%), including 45 patients (4.8%) who experienced a major complication; there were no deaths within 30 days.
CONCLUSION: Ileostomy closure is associated with a low rate of major grade III and IV complications and should be reserved for patients who have a predicted postoperative major complication rate of 5% or more without diversion.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22006879     DOI: 10.1001/archsurg.2011.234

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Surg        ISSN: 0004-0010


  24 in total

1.  Laparoscopic Versus Open Loop Ileostomy Reversal: Is there an Advantage to a Minimally Invasive Approach?

Authors:  Monica T Young; Grace S Hwang; Gopal Menon; Timothy F Feldmann; Mehraneh D Jafari; Fariba Jafari; Eden Perez; Alessio Pigazzi
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 3.352

2.  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

3.  Incidence and predictors of postoperative ileus after loop ileostomy closure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Richard Garfinkle; Paul Savage; Marylise Boutros; Tara Landry; Pauline Reynier; Nancy Morin; Carol-Ann Vasilevsky; Kristian B Filion
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2019-04-17       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Diverted versus undiverted restorative proctocolectomy for chronic ulcerative colitis: an analysis of long-term outcomes after pouch leak short title: outcomes after pouch leak.

Authors:  Maria Widmar; Jordan A Munger; Alex Mui; Stephen R Gorfine; David B Chessin; Daniel A Popowich; Joel J Bauer
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2019-01-25       Impact factor: 2.571

5.  Journey for patients following ileostomy creation is not straightforward.

Authors:  Dedrick Kok Hong Chan; Jingyu Ng; Frederick Hong-Xiang Koh; Tianzhi Lim; Danson Yeo; Kok-Yang Tan; Ker-Kan Tan
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2019-11-09       Impact factor: 2.571

Review 6.  Morbidity of loop ileostomy closure after restorative proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis and familial adenomatous polyposis: a systematic review.

Authors:  Rudolf Mennigen; Wiebke Sewald; Norbert Senninger; Emile Rijcken
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2014-09-18       Impact factor: 3.452

7.  Increased postoperative complications after protective ileostomy closure delay: An institutional study.

Authors:  Ines Rubio-Perez; Miguel Leon; Daniel Pastor; Joaquin Diaz Dominguez; Ramon Cantero
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2014-09-27

Review 8.  Purse-string skin closure versus linear skin closure techniques in stoma closure: a comprehensive meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis of randomised trials.

Authors:  Shahab Hajibandeh; Shahin Hajibandeh; Andrew Kennedy-Dalby; Sheik Rehman; Reza Arsalani Zadeh
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2018-08-03       Impact factor: 2.571

9.  Feasibility and safety of a fold-over diverting ileostomy reversal after rectal cancer surgery: case-matched comparison to the resection technique.

Authors:  Jinock Cheong; Jeonghyun Kang; Im-Kyung Kim; Nam Kyu Kim; Seung-Kook Sohn; Kang Young Lee
Journal:  Ann Coloproctol       Date:  2014-06-23

Review 10.  Purse-string approximation is superior to primary skin closure following stoma reversal: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  D P McCartan; J P Burke; S R Walsh; J C Coffey
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2013-01-25       Impact factor: 3.781

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.