Literature DB >> 22974343

Closure of defunctioning loop ileostomy is associated with considerable morbidity.

A Sharma1, A-P Deeb, A S Rickles, J C Iannuzzi, J R T Monson, F J Fleming.   

Abstract

AIM: An elective defunctioning ileostomy is commonly employed to attenuate the morbidity that may arise from distal anastomotic leakage. The magnitude of risk associated with subsequent ileostomy closure is difficult to estimate as many of the data arise from small series. This study looked at the rate of complications and predictive factors in a large series of patients.
METHODS: The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was queried for patients who had an elective closure of ileostomy between 2005 and 2010. Patient demographics, preoperative risk factors and operative variables were recorded. The primary outcome was occurrence of major (mortality, sepsis, return to the operating room, renal failure, major cardiac, neurological or respiratory episode) or minor (wound infection, urinary tract infection) complications within 30 days. Univariate and multivariate regression was used to evaluate the effect of these clinical factors on the complication rate.
RESULTS: In total, 5401 patients underwent closure of ileostomy, of whom 502 (9.3%) patients had major complications. The incidence of minor complications was 8.4% (452 patients). There were 32 (0.6%) deaths. American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, functional status, prolonged operative time, history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dialysis and disseminated cancer were independent predictors of major complications. There was no significant increase in complication rates in patients over the age of 80. Major complications were associated with a significant increase in postoperative stay (13.9 vs 4.7 days, P < 0.0001).
CONCLUSION: Closure of ileostomy is associated with a significant complication rate. It may use as many resources as the primary surgery and is not a minor follow-up operation.
© 2012 The Authors. Colorectal Disease © 2012 The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 22974343     DOI: 10.1111/codi.12029

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


  35 in total

1.  Two-stage Turnbull-Cutait pull-through coloanal anastomosis versus coloanal anastomosis with protective loop ileostomy for low rectal cancer. Protocol for a randomized controlled trial (Turnbull-BCN).

Authors:  Sebastiano Biondo; Loris Trenti; Ana Galvez; Eloy Espin-Basany; Francesco Bianco; Giovanni Romano; Esther Kreisler
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2017-06-30       Impact factor: 2.571

Review 2.  Preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative risk factors for anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic low anterior resection with double stapling technique anastomosis.

Authors:  Kenji Kawada; Yoshiharu Sakai
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-07-07       Impact factor: 5.742

3.  Impact of surgical proficiency levels on postoperative morbidity: a single centre analysis of 558 ileostomy reversals.

Authors:  S Löb; K Luetkens; K Krajinovic; A Wiegering; C-T Germer; F Seyfried
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2018-03-13       Impact factor: 2.571

4.  Delayed Colo-anal Anastomosis for Rectal Cancer: Pelvic Morbidity, Functional Results and Oncological Outcomes: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Giuseppe Portale; George Octavian Popesc; Matteo Parotto; Francesco Cavallin
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 3.352

5.  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

6.  Laparoscopic delayed coloanal anastomosis without diverting ileostomy for low rectal cancer surgery: 85 consecutive patients from a single institution.

Authors:  P-Y Sage; B Trilling; P-A Waroquet; D Voirin; E Girard; J-L Faucheron
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2018-07-19       Impact factor: 3.781

7.  Ileostomy reversal with handsewn techniques. Short-term outcomes in a teaching hospital.

Authors:  Gaetano Luglio; Francesco Terracciano; Mariano Cesare Giglio; Michele Sacco; Roberto Peltrini; Viviana Sollazzo; Emanuela Spadarella; Cristina Bucci; Giovanni Domenico De Palma; Luigi Bucci
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2016-09-06       Impact factor: 2.571

8.  Necessity of subcutaneous suction drains in ileostomy reversal (DRASTAR)-a randomized, controlled bi-centered trial.

Authors:  J C Lauscher; V Schneider; L D Lee; A Stroux; H J Buhr; M E Kreis; J P Ritz
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2016-05-01       Impact factor: 3.445

9.  Quality of life in rectal cancer surgery: What do the patient ask?

Authors:  Giovanni D De Palma; Gaetano Luglio
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2015-12-27

10.  Surgical site infections (SSIs) after stoma reversal (SR): risk factors, implications, and protective strategies.

Authors:  Daniel I Chu; Christopher R Schlieve; Dorin T Colibaseanu; Paul J Simpson; Amy E Wagie; Robert R Cima; Elizabeth B Habermann
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2014-09-13       Impact factor: 3.452

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.