Morbidity of Ostomy Takedown

Kaiser, Andreas M.; Israelit, Shlomo Hanan; Klaristenfeld, Daniel D.; Selvindoss, Paul; Vukasin, Petar; Ault, Glenn T.; Beart, Robert W.

doi:10.1007/s11605-007-0457-8

Cited by 89 publications

(82 citation statements)

References 21 publications

(19 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Morbidity related to stoma closure can vary from 0% to 38.5% (mean 17.3%) and mortality can vary from 0% to 8.9% (0.4%) in a recent review including 48 studies [40,53,54].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ghost ileostomy after anterior resection for rectal cancer: a preliminary experience

Gullà

Trastulli

Boselli

et al. 2011

Langenbecks Arch Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

GI is feasible, characterized by shorter recovery, lesser degree of total, as well as anastomosis-related morbidity and higher quality of life of patients and the caregivers in respect to CS. We suggest that GI (should be evaluated as an alternative to conventional ileostomy) could be indicated in selected patients that do not present risk factors, but require caution for anastomotic leakage for the low level of colorectal anastomosis.

show abstract

“…Morbidity related to stoma closure can vary from 0% to 38.5% (mean 17.3%) and mortality can vary from 0% to 8.9% (0.4%) in a recent review including 48 studies [40,53,54].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ghost ileostomy after anterior resection for rectal cancer: a preliminary experience

Gullà

Trastulli

Boselli

et al. 2011

Langenbecks Arch Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some surgeons use a protective stoma after LAR to prevent anastomotic leakage in the hope that by diverting the fecal stream and keeping the anastomosis free of material, leakage will be less likely. While other surgeons have reported that covering the protective stoma had no influence on anastomotic leakage and reoperation rates, the further complications that can be caused by the stoma itself should not be ignored, as they include discomfort and inconvenience, high output with consequent dehydration, and anastomotic complications at the stoma closure site [12][13][14][15][16][17][18] . Although protective stomas are widely used in LAR for rectal cancer, it remains unclear whether such protective stomas are useful for patients.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Role of protective stoma in low anterior resection for rectal cancer: A meta-analysis

Wu¹,

Ma²,

Yu³

2014

WJG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AIM:To provide a comprehensive evaluation of the role of a protective stoma in low anterior resection (LAR) for rectal cancer. METHODS:The PubMed, EMBASE, and MEDLINE databases were searched for studies and relevant literature published between 2007 and 2014 regarding the construction of a protective stoma during LAR. A pooled risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was used to assess the outcomes of the studies, including the rate of postoperative anastomotic leakage and reoperations related to leakage. Funnel plots and Egger's tests were used to evaluate the publication biases of the studies. P values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. RESULTS:A total of 11 studies were included in the meta-analysis. In total, 5612 patients were examined, 2868 of whom had a protective stoma and 2744 of whom did not. The sample size of the studies varied from 34 to 1912 patients. All studies reported the number of patients who developed an anastomotic leakage and required a reoperation related to leakage. A random effects model was used to calculate the pooled RR with the corresponding 95%CI because obvious heterogeneity was observed among the 11 studies (I 2 = 77%). The results indicated that the creation of a protective stoma during LAR significantly reduces the rate of anastomotic leakage and the number of reoperations related to leakage, with pooled RRs of 0.38 (95%CI: 0.30-0.48, P < 0.00001) and 0.37 (95%CI: 0.29-0.48, P < 0.00001), respectively. The shape of the funnel plot did not reveal any evidence of obvious asymmetry. CONCLUSION:The presence of a protective stoma effectively decreased the incidences of anastomotic leakage and reoperation and is recommended in patients undergoing low rectal anterior resections for rectal cancer.

show abstract

“…Today, the temporary protection of ileoanal and coloanal/ rectal anastomoses is often achieved by the creation of a loop ileostomy [1]. Although defunctioning of the colon does not provide true prophylaxis against anastomotic leakage, it is meant to mitigate potential complications after anastomosis formation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stapled ileostomy closure results in reduction of postoperative morbidity

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Morbidity of Ostomy Takedown

Abstract: Takedown of a temporary ostomy has a low mortality but a nonnegligible morbidity. The stoma location (large vs. small bowel) has a higher impact than the type of stoma construction (end vs. loop) on the incidence and severity of complications.

Cited by 89 publications

References 21 publications

Ghost ileostomy after anterior resection for rectal cancer: a preliminary experience

Ghost ileostomy after anterior resection for rectal cancer: a preliminary experience

Role of protective stoma in low anterior resection for rectal cancer: A meta-analysis

Stapled ileostomy closure results in reduction of postoperative morbidity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About