Temporary Transverse Colostomy vs Loop Ileostomy in Diversion: A Case-Matched Study

HYPOTHESIS For temporary fecal diversion, transverse colostomy (TC) has superior safety, but loop ileostomy (LI) has superior management qualities. METHODS Of patients with TC or LI seen between 1988 and 1997, 63 patients were matched for diagnosis, operative procedure, and date of surgery. The 2 gr...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Archives of surgery (Chicago, IL. 1960) IL. 1960), 2001-03, Vol.136 (3), p.338-342
Hauptverfasser: Sakai, Yasuo, Nelson, Heidi, Larson, Dirk, Maidl, Laurie, Young-Fadok, Tonia, Ilstrup, Duane
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:HYPOTHESIS For temporary fecal diversion, transverse colostomy (TC) has superior safety, but loop ileostomy (LI) has superior management qualities. METHODS Of patients with TC or LI seen between 1988 and 1997, 63 patients were matched for diagnosis, operative procedure, and date of surgery. The 2 groups were then compared for hospital/postoperative mortality and morbidity and stoma complications. RESULTS Mortality rates were 6.3% for the TC group and 1.6% for the LI group (P = .25). Morbidity rates for stoma creation and for stoma closure were 47.6% and 10% (P = .19), respectively, for the TC group, and 36.5% and 6.3% (P>.99), respectively, for the LI group. Most morbidity events were minor, and neither procedure-related nor other medical complications showed a significant difference between the groups. However, patients with a TC were significantly more likely to experience skin trouble around the stoma (TC vs LI, 15.9% vs 3.2%) and leakage around the stoma (TC vs LI, 12.7% vs 1.6%). CONCLUSIONS Regarding safety, TC and LI should be considered equivalent options for temporary fecal diversion. We recommend further study comparing the 2 procedures with regard to patient perception and quality of life.Arch Surg. 2001;136:338-342-->
ISSN:0004-0010
2168-6254
1538-3644
2168-6262
DOI:10.1001/archsurg.136.3.338