TY - JOUR
T1 - Temporary transverse colostomy vs loop ileostomy in diversion
T2 - A case-matched study
AU - Sakai, Yosuo
AU - Nelson, Heidi
AU - Larson, Dirk
AU - Maidl, Laurie
AU - Young-Fadok, Tonia
AU - Ilstrup, Duane
PY - 2001
Y1 - 2001
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0035092221&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0035092221&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1001/archsurg.136.3.338
DO - 10.1001/archsurg.136.3.338
M3 - Article
C2 - 11231858
AN - SCOPUS:0035092221
SN - 2168-6254
VL - 136
SP - 338
EP - 342
JO - JAMA Surgery
JF - JAMA Surgery
IS - 3
ER -