Literature DB >> 22340709

Low complication rate after stoma closure. Consultants attended 90% of the operations.

L Faunø1, C Rasmussen, K K Sloth, A M Sloth, A Tøttrup.   

Abstract

AIM: To evaluate complications after stoma closure.
METHOD: Using a retrospective review of 997 medical records, data were collected from all patients undergoing stoma closure at the Department of Surgery P, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark, from 1996 to 2010. Patient data after Hartmann reversal and loop-ileostomy closure were compared. Data regarding the grade of the operating surgeon and assistant were extracted.
RESULTS: Out of 997 patients, 700 (70.6%) had a loop-ileostomy closure and 172 (17.4%) had a Hartmann reversal. Postoperative mortality was 0.5%. Seven patients required re-operation (0.7%). Morbidity was registered in 31.9% of the patients, with 131 (13.1%) having early complications and 187 (18.8%) having late complications. Wound infection was the most frequent early complication, which occurred in 31 patients (3.1%). Only 10 patients (1%) had an anastomotic leak. Incisional hernia was the most frequent late complication, occurring in 92 patients (9.3%). A consultant attended 90% of the operations. Junior surgeons never performed stoma closure without supervision. Body mass index was significantly associated with the development of incisional hernia. Hartmann reversal was associated with higher rates of complications compared with loop-ileostomy closure. In patients with Hartmann reversal, stapled anastomosis was associated with stricture in 12 out of 95 cases (12.6%), whereas hand-sewn anastomosis was not associated with stricture (0 out of 64 patients; 0%; P < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Stoma closure is associated with low rates of leakage. A favourable case mix and high degree of consultant attendance may explain the good results.
© 2012 The Authors. Colorectal Disease © 2012 The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22340709     DOI: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2012.02991.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Colorectal Dis        ISSN: 1462-8910            Impact factor:   3.788


  6 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

Review 2.  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

3.  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

4.  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

Review 5.  Systematic Review of Adverse Effects: A Further Step towards Modernization of Acupuncture in China.

Authors:  Junyi Wu; Yanmei Hu; Yin Zhu; Ping Yin; Gerhard Litscher; Shifen Xu
Journal:  Evid Based Complement Alternat Med       Date:  2015-08-03       Impact factor: 2.629

6.  Surgical Audit of Patients with Ileal Perforations Requiring Ileostomy in a Tertiary Care Hospital in India.

Authors:  Hemkant Verma; Siddharth Pandey; Kapil Dev Sheoran; Sanjay Marwah
Journal:  Surg Res Pract       Date:  2015-07-13
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.