Literature DB >> 33537875

Comparative study between ghost ileostomy and defunctioning ileostomy in terms of morbidity and cost-effectiveness in low anterior resection for rectal cancer.

Serkan Zenger1, Bulent Gurbuz2, Ugur Can2, Emre Balik3, Tunc Yalti2,3, Dursun Bugra2,3.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare ghost ileostomy (GI) and defunctioning ileostomy (DI) in patients who underwent low anterior resection (LAR) for rectal cancer in terms of postoperative morbidity, rehospitalization rates, and total costs.
METHODS: Patients with an anastomosis level between 5 and 10 cm from the anal verge after LAR were analyzed retrospectively. Clinical characteristics, operative outcomes, postoperative morbidity, rehospitalization rates, and total costs were compared.
RESULTS: A total of 123 patients were enrolled as follows: 42 patients in the GI group and 81 patients in the DI group. Anastomotic leakage (AL) was identified in three patients who underwent GI, and in all of them, GI was easily converted to DI. There were 96.3% of the patients with DI rehospitalized at least one time because of surgery-related and/or stoma-related complications or stoma closure. When we did not take into account the patients who were rehospitalized for stoma closure, the rates of rehospitalization were 4.7% and 22.2% in the GI and DI groups, respectively (P= 0.01). The mean total costs calculated by removing additional surgical procedures and adding all of the rehospitalization costs were 25,767 USD and 41,875 USD in the GI and DI groups, respectively (P= 0.0001).
CONCLUSION: GI may be a safe and cost-effective method in patients who underwent LAR with low or medium risk factors for AL. It is possible to avoid unnecessary ileostomy and reduce unwanted outcomes due to it, such as postoperative complications, rehospitalizations, and increased total costs by performing GI.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cost-effectiveness; Defunctioning ileostomy; Ghost ileostomy; Low anterior resection; Rehospitalization

Year:  2021        PMID: 33537875     DOI: 10.1007/s00423-021-02089-w

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg        ISSN: 1435-2443            Impact factor:   3.445


  31 in total

Review 1.  Meta-analysis of defunctioning stomas in low anterior resection for rectal cancer.

Authors:  W S Tan; C L Tang; L Shi; K W Eu
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 6.939

Review 2.  Incidence of complications of the stoma and peristomal skin among individuals with colostomy, ileostomy, and urostomy: a systematic review.

Authors:  Ginger Salvadalena
Journal:  J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs       Date:  2008 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.741

3.  Meta-analysis of the risk for anastomotic leakage, the postoperative mortality caused by leakage in relation to the overall postoperative mortality.

Authors:  H S Snijders; M W J M Wouters; N J van Leersum; N E Kolfschoten; D Henneman; A C de Vries; R A E M Tollenaar; B A Bonsing
Journal:  Eur J Surg Oncol       Date:  2012-09-03       Impact factor: 4.424

4.  Virtual ileostomy following rectal cancer surgery: a good tool to avoid unusefull stomas?

Authors:  Marco Sacchi; Pietro Picozzi; Pietro Di Legge; Loreto Capuano; Luigi Greco; Matteo De Stefano; Sara Nicodemi; Maria Carlotta Sacchi
Journal:  Hepatogastroenterology       Date:  2011-07-15

5.  A defunctioning ileostomy does not prevent clinical anastomotic leak after a low anterior resection: a prospective, comparative study.

Authors:  N Y Wong; K W Eu
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 4.585

Review 6.  Systematic review of preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative risk factors for colorectal anastomotic leaks.

Authors:  F D McDermott; A Heeney; M E Kelly; R J Steele; G L Carlson; D C Winter
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2015-02-19       Impact factor: 6.939

7.  Complications of loop ileostomy closure: a retrospective cohort analysis of 123 patients.

Authors:  S D Mansfield; C Jensen; A S Phair; O T Kelly; S B Kelly
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 3.352

8.  Anastomotic leak after low anterior resection: a spectrum of clinical entities.

Authors:  Hannah Caulfield; Neil H Hyman
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 14.766

9.  Cost-effectiveness of defunctioning stomas in low anterior resections for rectal cancer: a call for benchmarking.

Authors:  Thomas Koperna
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  2003-12

10.  Defunctioning loop ileostomy with low anterior resection for distal rectal cancer: should we make an ileostomy as a routine procedure? A prospective randomized study.

Authors:  G G Chude; N V Rayate; V Patris; Mahim Koshariya; Rajan Jagad; J Kawamoto; N J Lygidakis
Journal:  Hepatogastroenterology       Date:  2008 Sep-Oct
View more
  3 in total

1.  Ghost Ileostomy: Safe and Cost-effective Alternative to Ileostomy After Rectal Resection for Deep Infiltrating Endometriosis.

Authors:  Alberto Vega Hernández; Jakob Otten; Hildegard Christ; Christoph Ulrici; Elvin Piriyev; Sebastian Ludwig; Claudia Rudroff
Journal:  In Vivo       Date:  2022 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.406

Review 2.  Early versus delayed defunctioning ileostomy closure after low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of safety and functional outcomes.

Authors:  Mauro Podda; Federico Coccolini; Chiara Gerardi; Greta Castellini; Michael Samuel James Wilson; Massimo Sartelli; Daniela Pacella; Fausto Catena; Roberto Peltrini; Umberto Bracale; Adolfo Pisanu
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2022-02-21       Impact factor: 2.796

3.  Ostomy closure rate during COVID-19 pandemic: an Italian multicentre observational study.

Authors:  Andrea Balla; Federica Saraceno; Salomone Di Saverio; Nicola Di Lorenzo; Pasquale Lepiane; Mario Guerrieri; Pierpaolo Sileri
Journal:  Updates Surg       Date:  2022-03-24
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.