Efficacy of laparoscopic surgery for loop colostomy: a propensity-score-matched analysis

Purpose Colostomy is a common procedure for fecal diversion, but the optimal colostomy approach is unclear in terms of surgical outcomes and stoma-related complications. The purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy and feasibility of laparoscopic loop colostomy. Methods This retrospective c...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Techniques in coloproctology 2023-12, Vol.27 (12), p.1319-1326
Hauptverfasser: Arai, S., Yamaoka, Y., Shiomi, A., Kagawa, H., Hino, H., Manabe, S., Chen, K., Nanishi, K., Maeda, C., Notsu, A., Kinugasa, Y.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Purpose Colostomy is a common procedure for fecal diversion, but the optimal colostomy approach is unclear in terms of surgical outcomes and stoma-related complications. The purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy and feasibility of laparoscopic loop colostomy. Methods This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent loop colostomy at Shizuoka Cancer Center in Japan between April 2010 and March 2022. Patients were divided into two groups based on surgical approach: the laparoscopic (LAP) and open (OPEN) groups. Surgical outcomes and the incidences of stoma-related complications such as stomal prolapse (SP), parastomal hernia (PSH), and skin disorders (SD) were compared with and without propensity score matching. Results Of the 388 eligible patients, 180 (46%) were in the LAP group and 208 (54%) were in the OPEN group. The male-to-female ratio was 5.5:4.5 in the Lap group and was 5.3:4.7 in the OPEN group, respectively. The median age was 68 years (range, 31–88 years) in the LAP group and 65 years (range, 23–93 years) in the OPEN group, respectively. The LAP group, compared with the OPEN group, had a shorter operative time and lower incidences of surgical site infection (3.9% versus 16.3%, respectively; p  
ISSN:1123-6337
1128-045X
DOI:10.1007/s10151-023-02856-5