Temporary End Ileostomy with Subcutaneously Buried Efferent Limb: Results and Potential Advantages

Purpose: To evaluate the results of a modified technique of creating a defunctioning end ileostomy. Methods: Medical records of all consecutive patients with a defunctioning end ileostomy with buried efferent limb operated at our hospital between January 2000 and December 2007 were reviewed. The defunctioning end ileostomy with buried efferent limb is created by closing the distal limb and positioning it in the subcutis. Parameters studied were: stomal and reversal related complications. Results: 66 patients were included. Between construction and closure of the stoma, a total of 21 patients (31.8%) developed stoma-related complications. In 1 patient (1.5%) high output occurred, in 6 (9%) stomal retraction and in 4 (6.1%) a parastomal hernia occurred. Peristomal skin problems were observed in 14 patients (21.2%) in the early postoperative period, decreasing to 6 patients (9.1%) after 3 weeks. In 1 patient, stoma closure could not be performed through a local approach and formal laparotomy was necessary. Complications of loop ileostomy as reported in the literature show relatively high rates of peristomal skin and leakage problems. Conclusions: Our results suggest that end ileostomy with subcutaneous buried efferent limb offers advantages over loop ileostomy with regard to the risk of developing peristomal skin and leakage problems.

[1]  T. Mala,et al.  Morbidity related to the use of a protective stoma in anterior resection for rectal cancer , 2008, Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.

[2]  S. Kumarage,et al.  Complications of loop ileostomy and ileostomy closure and their implications for extended enterostomal therapy: a prospective clinical study. , 2008, International journal of nursing studies.

[3]  H. Friess,et al.  Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Role of Defunctioning Stoma in Low Rectal Cancer Surgery , 2008, Annals of surgery.

[4]  M. Kusano,et al.  Quality of Life after Low Anterior Resection and Temporary Loop Ileostomy , 2008, Diseases of the colon and rectum.

[5]  A. Hasted,et al.  Results of a nationwide prospective audit of stoma complications within 3 weeks of surgery , 2007, Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.

[6]  R. Sjödahl,et al.  Defunctioning Stoma Reduces Symptomatic Anastomotic Leakage After Low Anterior Resection of the Rectum for Cancer: A Randomized Multicenter Trial , 2007, Annals of surgery.

[7]  M. Caricato,et al.  Retrospective analysis of long‐term defunctioning stoma complications after colorectal surgery , 2007, Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.

[8]  H. Saconato,et al.  Ileostomy or colostomy for temporary decompression of colorectal anastomosis. , 2007, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[9]  P. S. S. Mrcs,et al.  Comparison of Outcomes Following Ileostomy versus Colostomy for Defunctioning Colorectal Anastomoses , 2006, World Journal of Surgery.

[10]  H. Lippert,et al.  Protective defunctioning stoma in low anterior resection for rectal carcinoma , 2005, The British journal of surgery.

[11]  Ph.D. S. Fasth M.D.,et al.  Loop ileostomy: A superior diverting stoma in colorectal surgery , 2005, World Journal of Surgery.

[12]  S. Lledó,et al.  A Prospective Audit of the Complications of Loop Ileostomy Construction and Takedown , 2005, Digestive Surgery.

[13]  J. V. van Lanschot,et al.  Morbidity of Temporary Loop Ileostomies , 2004, Digestive Surgery.

[14]  P. Nyström,et al.  Safety of the temporary loop ileostomy , 2002, Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.

[15]  W. Law,et al.  Randomized clinical trial comparing loop ileostomy and loop transverse colostomy for faecal diversion following total mesorectal excision , 2002, The British journal of surgery.

[16]  J. Scholefield,et al.  Defunctioning loop ileostomy and stapled side-to-side closure has low morbidity. , 2001, Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England.

[17]  D. Edwards,et al.  Stoma‐related complications are more frequent after transverse colostomy than loop ileostomy: a prospective randomized clinical trial , 2001, The British journal of surgery.

[18]  A. Thakur,et al.  Comparison of loop versus end ileostomy for fecal diversion after restorative proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis. , 2000, Journal of the American College of Surgeons.

[19]  J. Torkington,et al.  Temporary decompression after colorectal surgery: randomized comparison of loop ileostomy and loop colostomy. , 1998, The British journal of surgery.

[20]  J. Nogueras,et al.  Loop ileostomy is a safe option for fecal diversion , 1993, Diseases of the colon and rectum.

[21]  L. Leenen,et al.  Some factors influencing the outcome of stoma surgery , 1989, Diseases of the colon and rectum.

[22]  E. Utiyama,et al.  The efficacy of loop colostomy for complete fecal diversion , 1988, Diseases of the colon and rectum.

[23]  L. Meleagros,et al.  Colostomy or ileostomy after colorectal anastomosis?: a randomised trial. , 1987, Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England.

[24]  N. Williams,et al.  De‐functioning stomas: A prospective controlled trial comparing loop ileostomy with loop transverse colostomy , 1986, The British journal of surgery.

[25]  R. Pearl,et al.  End-loop ileocolostomy for massive trauma to the right side of the colon. , 1984, Archives of surgery.