Skip to main content
Top
Published in: International Journal of Colorectal Disease 4/2011

01-04-2011 | Original Article

Diversion stoma after colorectal surgery: loop colostomy or ileostomy?

Authors: Christian D. Klink, Kosta Lioupis, Marcel Binnebösel, Daniel Kaemmer, Ivanna Kozubek, Jochen Grommes, Ulf P. Neumann, Marc Jansen, Stefan Willis

Published in: International Journal of Colorectal Disease | Issue 4/2011

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The total rate as well as the clinical outcome of anastomotic leakage in colorectal and coloanal anastomosis necessitates a loop stoma for fecal diversion. The aim of this study was to determine the outcome of loop transverse colostomy compared to loop ileostomy as a temporary defunctioning stoma following colorectal surgery with colorectal or coloanal anastomosis.

Methods

Data of 200 patients between January 2003 and January 2009 were analyzed in this two-center study to determine the surgical outcome in patients with loop colostomy (n = 100) in comparison to loop ileostomy (n = 100) for fecal diversion including outcome of stoma creation and complication rates during stoma reversal.

Results

During stoma placement, dermatitis and renal insufficiency occurred significantly more often in the loop ileostomy group than in the loop transverse colostomy group (15% vs. 0%; p < 0.001 and 10% vs. 1%; p = 0.005). During stoma reversal, wound infection occurred significantly more often in the loop transverse colostomy group than in the loop ileostomy group (27% vs. 8%; p < 0.001). Time to first defecation was significantly shorter in the loop ileostomy group after both placement and reversal (4 ± 2 vs. 2 ± 1; p < 0.001 and 3 ± 2 vs. 2 ± 1; p < 0.001). Hospital stay was significantly shorter in the loop ileostomy group than in the loop transverse colostomy group after stoma closure (18 ± 15 vs. 13 ± 6; p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Both methods provide a good operative outcome with low complication rates. We do recommend the loop ileostomy in all patients in which dehydration is not to be expected since wound infection rate is lower and hospital stay is shorter during stoma reversal.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Law WI, Chu KW, Ho JW, Chan CW (2000) Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision. Am J Surg 179:92–96PubMedCrossRef Law WI, Chu KW, Ho JW, Chan CW (2000) Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision. Am J Surg 179:92–96PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Moran B, Heald R (2000) Anastomotic leakage after colorectal anastomosis. Semin Surg Oncol 18:244–248PubMedCrossRef Moran B, Heald R (2000) Anastomotic leakage after colorectal anastomosis. Semin Surg Oncol 18:244–248PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Gooszen AW, Geelkerken RH, Hermans J, Lagaay MB, Gooszen HG (1998) Temporary decompression after colorectal surgery: randomized comparison of loop ileostomy and loop colostomy. Br J Surg 85:76–79PubMedCrossRef Gooszen AW, Geelkerken RH, Hermans J, Lagaay MB, Gooszen HG (1998) Temporary decompression after colorectal surgery: randomized comparison of loop ileostomy and loop colostomy. Br J Surg 85:76–79PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Gastinger I, Marusch F, Steinert R, Wolff S, Koeckerling F, Lippert H (2005) Protective defunctioning stoma in low anterior resection for rectal carcinoma. Br J Surg 92:1137–1142PubMedCrossRef Gastinger I, Marusch F, Steinert R, Wolff S, Koeckerling F, Lippert H (2005) Protective defunctioning stoma in low anterior resection for rectal carcinoma. Br J Surg 92:1137–1142PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Williams NS, Nasmyth DG, Jones D, Smith AH (1986) De-functioning stomas: a prospective controlled trial comparing loop ileostomy with loop transverse colostomy. Br J Surg 73:566–570PubMedCrossRef Williams NS, Nasmyth DG, Jones D, Smith AH (1986) De-functioning stomas: a prospective controlled trial comparing loop ileostomy with loop transverse colostomy. Br J Surg 73:566–570PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Khoury GA, Lewis MC, Meleagros L, Lewis AA (1987) Colostomy or ileostomy after colorectal anastomosis?: a randomised trial. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 69:5–7PubMed Khoury GA, Lewis MC, Meleagros L, Lewis AA (1987) Colostomy or ileostomy after colorectal anastomosis?: a randomised trial. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 69:5–7PubMed
7.
go back to reference Sakai Y, Nelson H, Larson D, Maidl L, Young-Fadok T, Ilstrup D (2001) Temporary transverse colostomy vs loop ileostomy in diversion: a case-matched study. Arch Surg 136:338–342PubMedCrossRef Sakai Y, Nelson H, Larson D, Maidl L, Young-Fadok T, Ilstrup D (2001) Temporary transverse colostomy vs loop ileostomy in diversion: a case-matched study. Arch Surg 136:338–342PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Rutegard J, Dahlgren S (1987) Transverse colostomy or loop ileostomy as diverting stoma in colorectal surgery. Acta Chir Scand 153:229–232PubMed Rutegard J, Dahlgren S (1987) Transverse colostomy or loop ileostomy as diverting stoma in colorectal surgery. Acta Chir Scand 153:229–232PubMed
9.
go back to reference Huser N, Michalski CW, Erkan M, Schuster T, Rosenberg R, Kleeff J, Friess H (2008) Systematic review and meta-analysis of the role of defunctioning stoma in low rectal cancer surgery. Ann Surg 248:52–60PubMedCrossRef Huser N, Michalski CW, Erkan M, Schuster T, Rosenberg R, Kleeff J, Friess H (2008) Systematic review and meta-analysis of the role of defunctioning stoma in low rectal cancer surgery. Ann Surg 248:52–60PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Tan WS, Tang CL, Shi L, Eu KW (2009) Meta-analysis of defunctioning stomas in low anterior resection for rectal cancer. Br J Surg 96:462–472PubMedCrossRef Tan WS, Tang CL, Shi L, Eu KW (2009) Meta-analysis of defunctioning stomas in low anterior resection for rectal cancer. Br J Surg 96:462–472PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Edwards DP, Leppington-Clarke A, Sexton R, Heald RJ, Moran BJ (2001) Stoma-related complications are more frequent after transverse colostomy than loop ileostomy: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Br J Surg 88:360–363PubMedCrossRef Edwards DP, Leppington-Clarke A, Sexton R, Heald RJ, Moran BJ (2001) Stoma-related complications are more frequent after transverse colostomy than loop ileostomy: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Br J Surg 88:360–363PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Chand M, Talbot R, Nash G (2007) Closure of temporary stoma after anterior resection. Colorectal Dis 9:758–759PubMedCrossRef Chand M, Talbot R, Nash G (2007) Closure of temporary stoma after anterior resection. Colorectal Dis 9:758–759PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Rondelli F, Reboldi P, Rulli A, Barberini F, Guerrisi A, Izzo L, Bolognese A, Covarelli P, Boselli C, Becattini C, Noya G (2009) Loop ileostomy versus loop colostomy for fecal diversion after colorectal or coloanal anastomosis: a meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis 24:479–488PubMedCrossRef Rondelli F, Reboldi P, Rulli A, Barberini F, Guerrisi A, Izzo L, Bolognese A, Covarelli P, Boselli C, Becattini C, Noya G (2009) Loop ileostomy versus loop colostomy for fecal diversion after colorectal or coloanal anastomosis: a meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis 24:479–488PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Tilney HS, Sains PS, Lovegrove RE, Reese GE, Heriot AG, Tekkis PP (2007) Comparison of outcomes following ileostomy versus colostomy for defunctioning colorectal anastomoses. World J Surg 31:1142–1151PubMedCrossRef Tilney HS, Sains PS, Lovegrove RE, Reese GE, Heriot AG, Tekkis PP (2007) Comparison of outcomes following ileostomy versus colostomy for defunctioning colorectal anastomoses. World J Surg 31:1142–1151PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Diversion stoma after colorectal surgery: loop colostomy or ileostomy?
Authors
Christian D. Klink
Kosta Lioupis
Marcel Binnebösel
Daniel Kaemmer
Ivanna Kozubek
Jochen Grommes
Ulf P. Neumann
Marc Jansen
Stefan Willis
Publication date
01-04-2011
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
International Journal of Colorectal Disease / Issue 4/2011
Print ISSN: 0179-1958
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1262
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-010-1123-2

Other articles of this Issue 4/2011

International Journal of Colorectal Disease 4/2011 Go to the issue