Aim: A prospective review of the complications of ileostomy construction and takedown. Materials and Methods: One hundred twenty-seven consecutive patients undergoing construction of a loop ileostomy were included in a prospective nonrandomized computer database. Complications of the loop ileostomy were assessed prior to and after closure. Three closure techniques were performed [enterotomy suture (25.7%), resection and hand sewn (31.2%) or stapled anastomosis (43.1%)] and compared. Results: One hundred twenty-seven (73 male, 54 female) patients, mean age 54 years were included from 1992 to 2002. Seventy-two patients underwent anterior resection for low rectal carcinoma, 30 an ileoanal pouch for ulcerative colitis and 25 for miscellaneous conditions. Fifty-nine pre-takedown complications occurred in 50 (39.4%) patients. The most common were dermatitis (12.6%) and erythema (7.1%). The most severe were dehydration in 1 patient and stomal prolapse in 4 patients. Closure was associated with a complication rate of 33.1% and a mortality rate of 0.9%. Wound infection occurred in 18.3% and small bowel obstruction in 4.6%. Anastomotic leak requiring reanastomosis occurred in 2.8% and enterocutaneous fistula treated conservatively in 5.5%. There were no statistically significant differences in morbidity between closure techniques (p = 0.892). There were no statistically significant differences in complications (p = 0.516) between patients with ulcerative colitis and those with neoplasia (39.29% vs. 32.2%). Conclusions: Loop ileostomy construction and takedown is associated with considerable morbidity, mostly minor. No differences exist between technique used for closure or the baseline pathology of the patient.

Background: the diagnostic and therapeutic management of colonic volvulus remains nowadays controversial. The election of the type of surgery, its timing, or the use of non-operative decompression must be based on the experience of a multidisciplinary team, the clinical condition of the patient, and the type of volvulus. Objectives: the purpose of this study is to review our experience and results in the treatment of patients with colonic volvulus. Material and methods: we performed a retrospective study of patients diagnosed of colonic volvulus between January 1990 and September 2008 in our institution. Results: we included a total of 75 patients with a mean age of 72.7 years and, in most cases, with associated comorbidities and constipation. The most frequently involved segment was sigmoid colon (85.3%). A rectal tube insertion was used as the only therapeutic measure in 17 patients (22.4%), colonoscopic decompression in 17 (22.4%), and surgery in 41 patients (55.2%). Intestinal resection with primary anastomosis was the most common surgical option. Postoperative morbidity was 43%, being wound infections the most frequent complication. In the group of non-surgical treatment morbidity was 26.4%, albeit with a higher and early rate of recurrences. Conclusions: treatment of colonic volvulus present important morbidity and mortality rates, and its treatment must be individualized. Resective surgery with primary anastomosis in clinically stable patients is the most appropriate therapeutic option, offering the lower recurrence rates.

The overall recurrence rate is acceptable, but high fistulae continue to be difficult to treat. IO identification is also essential for obtaining good results. It is important to identify the patients with preoperative incontinence as they are at a greater risk of deterioration after surgery.

Immediate sphincter repair can be a therapeutic option in selected cases of CF, mainly when associated with incontinence or increased risk factors.

Anal continence is significantly affected after fistula-in-ano surgery, mainly because of sphincteric lesions that affect anal canal pressures and that can be imaged with endoanal ultrasound. It is important to preoperatively recognize sphincter defects to allow adequate surgical treatment.