Colostomy Group Research Articles

Pre-emptive Laparoscopic Colostomy Creation in Obstructing Locally Advanced Rectal and Anal Cancer Does Not Delay the Starting of Oncological Treatments.

Managing patients with obstructing rectal cancer is challenging due to the risks of gastrointestinal obstruction and perforation. This study evaluates the outcomes of pre-emptive laparoscopic colostomy creation in patients with locally advanced rectal and anal cancer to prevent symptoms and facilitate therapy initiation. This retrospective cohort study includes patients with locally advanced rectal or anal cancer assessed by our Colorectal Multidisciplinary Team from January 2017 to February 2024. Patients who underwent pre-emptive laparoscopic colostomy were compared to a control group of non-obstructing rectal cancer patients who started direct oncological treatment. The primary endpoint was the time from diagnosis to the initiation of oncological treatments. The secondary endpoints were the rate and timing of subsequent radical resection, surgical morbidity and hospital stay. A Weibull regression was used to evaluate the time differences between the groups. There were 37 patients who received pre-emptive laparoscopic colostomy, compared to 207 control patients. The mean time from diagnosis to the start of neoadjuvant therapy was 38.3 ± 2.3 days. Despite higher rates of malnutrition and more advanced stages in the colostomy group, no significant differences were observed in the time to start therapy (p = 0.083) or time to radical resection (p = 0.187) between the groups. The laparoscopic procedure showed low rates of postoperative complications and acceptable lengths of stay. Pre-emptive laparoscopic colostomy is a feasible approach for managing obstructing rectal or anal cancer. Treatment timelines were not extended compared to timelines for non-obstructing cases, despite differences in nutritional status and staging. Further prospective studies with larger cohorts are needed to validate these findings and refine treatment protocols for obstructing gastrointestinal malignancies.

The Impact of Colostomy on Inpatient Outcomes Following Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty.

Introduction The inpatient postoperative outcomes of patients with colostomies following primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) have not been well studied in the literature. The purpose of this study was to analyze how colostomy impacts the immediate postoperative outcomes of TKA. Our null hypothesis is that after correcting for common variables, a colostomy does not predispose patients undergoing TKA to surgical site infections (SSIs) and periprosthetic infections. Methods The National Inpatient Sample database was used to retrieve information on colostomy patients and patients without a colostomy who had undergone primary TKA from 2016 to 2019. Patients with colostomies were matched to a cohort of non-colostomy control groups in a 1:1 propensity score algorithm by age, sex, race, and pertinent comorbidities. Patient demographic characteristics, comorbidities, length of hospital stay (LOS), total hospital charges, and inpatient complications were compared. Results Following propensity score matching, 399 patients with colostomies were compared to 385 patients without a colostomy (control). The colostomy group had a prolonged LOS (3.15 ± 2.67 vs 2.44 ± 3.15 days, p<0.001) compared to the control group. Also, the colostomy group had significantly higher incidences of acute kidney injury (AKI) (6.02% vs 1.56%, odds ratio (OR): 4.04, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.63-10.00, p<0.001), blood loss anemia (20.55% vs 13.25%, OR: 1.69, 95% CI: 1.16-2.48, p=0.008), and blood transfusions (4.01% vs 0.26%, OR: 16.04, 95% CI: 2.12-121.56, p<0.001). There was no difference in periprosthetic infection, superficial SSI, or deep SSI. Conclusion Patients with colostomies face a notably higher risk of experiencing AKI, blood loss anemia, and blood transfusion requirements during the immediate postoperative period following primary TKA. Despite the perceived risk of postoperative infection in colostomy patients, this patient population is not at an increased risk of developing periprosthetic infection, superficial SSI, or deep SSI following TKA.

Diverting Ileostomy vs Colostomy in Colorectal Surgery: A Single Institution Outcomes Comparison

Introduction: Diverting stomas often accompany total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer and for patients having anterior resection for complicated diverticulitis when the risk for anastomotic leak is increased. Diverting stomas are also an option to urgently relieve colonic obstruction from neoplasia or diverticular disease. The diverting stoma choice is often a loop ileostomy that increases the risk for acute kidney injury (AKI) or a diverting loop transverse that may be greater risk for stoma prolapse. The objective of this study is to determine if ileostomy or colostomy is a better diversion option when considering complications and outcomes on a dedicated enhanced recovery colorectal surgery service. Methods: This is a single institution analysis of a prospectively maintained institutional colorectal surgery database between 01/01/2018 and 09/30/2023. The primary outcome was the postoperative 30-day complication rate after diverting ileostomy or colostomy. Secondary outcomes were AKI, stoma prolapse, other individual complications, and readmissions. Strength of association was estimated with multivariable logistic regression models adjusted for patient characteristics. Results: 347 patients met inclusion criteria – 81 with a diverting colostomy and 266 with a diverting ileostomy. Patients undergoing diverting colostomy were older than those undergoing diverting ileostomy (64.2 +/- 14.5 years versus 59.1 +/- 13.9 years, p =0.006), had lower BMI (26.32 +/- 5.95 kg versus 27.66 +/- 6.39 kg, p = 0.028), and had a higher incidence of diabetes (18.5% versus 10.2%, p = 0.043). The overall complication rate was significantly higher for ileostomies (29.6% vs 59.8%, p&lt;0.001 ) as was acute kidney injury (1.2% vs 16.2%, p&lt;0.001), ileus (13.6% vs 35.7%, p&lt;0.001), SSI III (2.5% vs 9.8%, p=0.035), ED visits (9.9% vs 24.4%, p=0.005), and readmissions (6.2% vs 18%, p=0.009). Stoma prolapse within 6 months (4.9% vs 0.4%, p=0.003), reoperation (7.4% vs 0.8%, p&lt;0.001), and postoperative death (4.9% vs 0%, p&lt;0.001) were significantly higher for the colostomy group. Conclusions: Colostomies are associated with fewer complications and may be a better option for fecal diversion when there are no other factors that preclude this choice.

Retroperitoneal end colostomy for hernia prevention after laparoscopic abdominoperineal excision: a retrospective study

AIM: to compare the hernia rate and the post-operative morbidity in patients after retroperitoneal and traditional (direct) colostomy during laparoscopic APR.PATIENTS AND METHODS: the retrospective study included patients with rectal and anal cancer after laparoscopic APE in 2019-2022. Direct or retroperitoneal end colostomy were the surgeon’s choice. Primary endpoints were the hernia rate after ≥ 1 year by abdominal CT and post-operative morbidity (Clavien-Dindo).RESULTS: fifty patients were included in the study (30 patients with retroperitoneal colostomy and 20 patients with direct colostomy). There were no significant differences in parameters that could affect the results. Four (13.3%) vs 8 (40%) patients developed parastomal hernias in the retroperitoneal and direct colostomy group, accordingly (p = 0.045). No post-operative morbidity grade 4–5 and no other complications that could be attributed to retroperitoneal colostomy occurred. Post-operative morbidity grade 3 developed in 3 (10%) patients in the retroperitoneal colostomy group and in 1 (5%) — in the direct one (p = 0.64).CONCLUSION: retroperitoneal colostomy in laparoscopic APE may reduce the parastomal hernia rate. It is important to conduct prospective comparative studies.

Total hip arthroplasty in patients with colostomy: impact on inpatient complications, hospital costs, and length of stay.

The presence of permanent end-colostomy is traditionally thought of as a risk factor for complications following orthopedic joint replacement; however, literature supporting this association is scarce. This study aims to discern how length of stay, cost of stay, and inpatient complications following total hip arthroplasty (THA) are impacted by presence of colostomy. Data from the National Inpatient Sample was analyzed by International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification regarding THA in patients with and without end-colostomy. Unmatched and matched analyses comparing length of stay, cost of stay, and post-operative adverse outcomes between the two groups were conducted. In the unmatched analysis, 445 THA patients with colostomy were compared to 367,449 THA patients without colostomy. The colostomy patients were then matched for age, sex, race, diabetes, obesity, and the matched groups consisted of 445 patients with and 425 patients without colostomy, respectively. Compared to the THA without colostomy group, the colostomy group was significantly older, had longer hospital stays, and greater cost of stay. When matched for age and comorbidities, length of hospital stay (p < 0.001) and cost of stay (p = 0.002) remained significantly higher. The colostomy group was at significantly increased risk for periprosthetic fracture, dislocation, and infection compared to all THA patients. When matched for age and common comorbidities, the colostomy group had significantly higher risk in only periprosthetic dislocation [p = 0.003, OR 11.8 (1.6-4.6, 95% CI)] and periprosthetic infection [p < 0.05, OR 2.7 (0.97-7.7 95% CI)]. Patients with colostomy are at risk of longer hospital courses and greater incurred costs following THA compared to patients without colostomy. They are additionally at significantly increased risk of periprosthetic dislocation and periprosthetic infection, warranting treatment as high-risk patients. Retrospective cohort study.

Use of ileostomy versus colostomy as a bridge to surgery in left-sided obstructive colon cancer: retrospective cohort study

Colorectal cancer causes the majority of large bowel obstructions and surgical resection remains the gold standard for curative treatment. There is evidence that a deviating stoma as a bridge to surgery can reduce postoperative mortality rate; however, the optimal stoma type is unclear. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes between ileostomy and colostomy as a bridge to surgery in left-sided obstructive colon cancer. This was a national, retrospective population-based cohort study with 75 contributing hospitals. Patients with radiological left-sided obstructive colon cancer between 2009 and 2016, where a deviating stoma was used as a bridge to surgery, were included. Exclusion criteria were palliative treatment intent, perforation at presentation, emergency resection, and multivisceral resection. A total of 321 patients underwent a deviating stoma; 41 (12.7 per cent) ileostomies and 280 (87.2 per cent) colostomies. The ileostomy group had longer length of stay (median 13 (interquartile range (i.q.r.) 10-16) versus 9 (i.q.r. 6-14) days, P = 0.003) and more nutritional support during the bridging interval. Both groups showed similar complication rates in the bridging interval and after primary resection, including anastomotic leakage. Stoma reversal during resection was more common in the colostomy group (9 (22.0 per cent) versus 129 (46.1 per cent) for ileostomy and colostomy respectively, P = 0.006). This study demonstrated that patients having a colostomy as a bridge to surgery in left-sided obstructive colon cancer had a shorter length of stay and lower need for nutritional support. No difference in postoperative complications were found.

Does stoma modify compliance with enhanced recovery after surgery programs? Results of a cohort study

Few studies have focused on enhanced recovery programs (ERPs) in patients who have received a stoma after colorectal surgery. The objective of the study was to compare ERP compliant patients who have not received a stoma, those who received a colostomy, and those who received an ileostomy. This study used data that had been prospectively collected as part of the ERP audit performed through the Groupe francophone de Réhabilitation Améliorée après Chirurgie [Francophone Group for Enhanced Recovery after Surgery] over a 4-year period. All patients who had undergone colorectal surgery were included and separated into three groups (no stoma, ileostomy, and colostomy). The primary outcome was ERP compliance, calculated through the use of 16 tracer items. Of the 422 recruited patients, 317 had not received a stoma (75.12%), 59 had an ileostomy (13.98%), and 46 had a colostomy (10.90%). ERP compliance was 73% in the non-stoma group, 66.6% in the ileostomy group, and 66% in the colostomy group (p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that patients from the ileostomy group had a higher risk of bowel preparation [OR = 9.1; 95% CI = 1.16-71.65] and of maintaining their urinary catheter [OR = 0.3; 95% CI = 0.14-0.81] than the group which did not receive a stoma. Patients from the colostomy group required significantly more drainage than those in the non-stoma group (OR = 4.3; 95% CI = 1.33-14.02). ERP is feasible in colorectal surgery in the context of stomas, but in case of ileostomy protecting a rectal surgery, the audit system must be adapted to the protocols in use in the departments.

A comparative study of stoma-related complications from diverting loop ileostomy or colostomy after colorectal surgery.

Even though minor, stoma-related complications significantly impact quality of life, they are often excluded from clinical analyses that compare short-term postoperative outcomes of loop ileostomy and loop colostomy. This study compares stoma-related complications between loop ileostomy and loop colostomy after rectal resection, including minor complications, and discusses the characteristics of diverting stoma types. A retrospective review was conducted in patients who underwent diverting stoma construction after rectal resection. Data on patient background and postoperative short-term outcomes, including stoma-related complications and morbidity after stoma closure, were collected and compared between loop ileostomy and loop colostomy groups. Morbidities of all severity grades were targeted for analysis. A total of 47 patients (27 loop ileostomy, 20 loop colostomy) underwent diverting stoma construction following rectal resection. Overall stoma-related complications, incidence of skin irritation, high-output stoma, and outlet obstruction were significantly higher in the loop ileostomy group but high-output stoma and outlet obstruction were absent in the loop colostomy group. Regarding morbidity after stoma closure, operation times and surgical site infections were significantly higher in the loop colostomy group while anastomotic leakage after diverting stoma closure occurred (2 cases; 15%) in the loop colostomy group but not the loop ileostomy group. Because stoma-related complications were significantly higher in the loop ileostomy group, and even these minor complications may impair QOL, early loop ileostomy closure is recommended. For loop colostomy, stoma-related morbidities are lower but post-closure leakage is a calculated risk.

Outcome of Divided and Loop Sigmoid Colostomy for the Management of Anorectal Malformation (ARM): A Comparative Study

Background: Anorectal Malformation (ARM) is one of the common congenital anomalies in the world. There are various surgical options for management of ARM. Colostomy is usually performed as a first stage in a new born with high and intermediate variety of anorectal malformations. The aim of the study was to compare the clinical outcomes between divided and loop sigmoid colostomy for the management of anorectal malformations. Material and Methods: This prospective comparative study was conducted on 130 pediatric patients at the Faculty of Pediatric Surgery, Bangladesh Shishu Hospital and Institute, who were admitted with anorectal malformations (ARM) up to 7 days of age, from March 2018 to February 2021. Informed consent was obtained after proper counselling with the guardian. They were randomly assigned to the divided sigmoid colostomy group (group 1=65 neonates) and loop sigmoid colostomy group (group 2=65 neonates). The comparative parameters between two groups were the operation time, post-operative complications such as wound infection, skin excoriation, prolapse of colostomy, retraction of colostomy and parastomal hernia. All patients were followed up for 2 months post-operatively. Results: The mean age of the patients was 2.43±1.39days in group 1 and in group 2, the mean age was 2.61±1.73 days where majority of the patients were male. The statistical difference between the two groups regarding operation time was highly significant (0.0001). After operation, 26.15% patients developed skin excoriation in group 1 where in group 2, 29.23% patients developed skin excoriation. In group 1, 6.15% patients developed wound infection but none of them developed prolapse, retraction of colostomy and parastomal hernia. On the other hand, in group 2, 1.54% patient developed wound infection, 15.38% patients developed prolapse and 6.15% patients developed retraction of colostomy and no patient experienced parastomal hernia. The statistical difference between the two groups regarding prolapse of colostomy was significant (p=0.042). Conclusion: In our study, the frequency of different stoma-related problems was greater in the loop colostomy group, although being statistically insignificant. In the divided group, there was significantly less stoma prolapse. In light of these results, divided stoma should be suggested for newborns with ARM.

Deterioration in renal function after stoma creation: a retrospective review from a Middle Eastern tertiary care center.

Stomas are associated with multiple complications including dehydration which ultimately affects renal function. These complications begin with changes in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR). Evaluate changes in GFR after stoma creation by stoma type and identify how different types of stoma affect GFR. Retrospective, analytical cohort SETTING: Tertiary care center in Saudi Arabia PATIENTS AND METHODS: The colorectal surgery database was reviewed for all adult patients who underwent stoma creation (permanent and temporary ileostomies and colostomies) or reversal in 2000-2015. GFR was estimated at the first encounter, before the index surgery, at the time of stoma reversal, and upon the last follow-up. Patients with renal impairment, including low GFR before stoma creation, patients who had a temporary stoma converted to a permanent stoma, and patients who died with a stoma were excluded. We studied the association of several demographic and clinical factors on changes in GFR by univariate and multivariate analysis. Estimated GFR at the last clinic visit for the permanent stoma group and at stoma closure for the temporary stoma group. 394 patients (149 ileostomates, 245 colostomates) RESULTS: Thirty-three (8.4%) of the 394 patients had a low GFR: 11 (7.4%) in the ileostomy group and 22 (9%) in the colostomy group (P= .579). The rate of readmissions with ileostomies was higher (11.4%) than with colostomies (3.3%) (P≤.001). The number of temporary ileostomies (n=9, 7.0%) differed from temporary colostomies (n=2, 1.9%) but the difference was not statistically significant (P=.06). In the multivariate analysis, stoma permanency, hypertension, chemotherapy and nephrotoxic drugs were risk factors associated with low GFR. Ileostomies were not associated with a high rate of renal function deterioration in comparison to colostomies, but had a significantly higher rate of readmission due to dehydration and electrolytes imbalance possibly due to the hot climate in Saudi Arabia. Retrospective nature and limited sample size which may have resulted in a type 2 statistical error. None.

Protective loop ileostomy or colostomy? a risk evaluation of all common complications.

Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice. Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared. There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female sex, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542). We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolong diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.

Temporary loop ileostomy versus transverse colostomy for laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a retrospective study.

To compare the surgical outcomes of ileostomy vs. transverse colostomy and investigate which is more suitable for a diverting stoma. We assessed stoma-related complications and surgical outcomes, retrospectively, for 146 patients who underwent laparoscopic colorectal surgery with a temporary loop ileostomy or transverse colostomy. Complications after secondary stoma closure surgery were also analyzed. After the primary surgery, the incidence of prolapse was significantly higher in the transverse colostomy group, whereas high-output stoma and skin irritation were seen more frequently in the ileostomy group. The median interval to stoma closure was shorter in the ileostomy group than in the transverse colostomy group (144 vs. 196days). After secondary closure surgery, the incidence of wound infection was significantly higher in the transverse colostomy group than in the ileostomy group. None of the patients in the ileostomy group had severe complications. The median postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the ileostomy group than in the transverse colostomy group (10 vs. 13days). The findings of this study suggest that ileostomy should be the procedure of choice for short-term temporary diverting stoma, but that transverse colostomy is more appropriate for patients who require a long-term or permanent stoma.

Quality of life assessment for rectal cancer patients: A comparison between sphincter preservation and permanent colostomy

"This study aims to compare the quality of life in patients with rectal cancer between sphincter preservation and permanent colostomy. The present study is a cross-sectional study that was performed on 120 patients (60 cases in the sphincter maintenance group and 60 cases in the permanent colostomy group) who underwent surgery from February 2017 to November 2016. Quality of life assessment was provided with QLQ-C30 and QLQ-CR29 questionnaires. Finally, the collected data were analyzed using SPSS23 software. According to the results of the QLQ-C30 questionnaire, there was no statistically significant difference in patients' quality of life in terms of performance in the study groups (P˃0.05). Symptoms such as nausea, pain, shortness of breath, sleep disturbance, loss of appetite, constipation and economic problems in the study groups were not statistically significant (P˃0.05). But the mean symptoms of fatigue (P=0.038) and diarrhea (P=0.037) were significantly higher in the sphincter maintenance group than the permanent colostomy group. The mean score of patients' quality of life was 53.43 ± 8.40 in the sphincter retention group and 52.23 ± 11.45 in the permanent colostomy group (P = 0.556). According to the results, the quality of life in the two surgical methods of sphincter preservation and permanent colostomy was not statistically significant. Therefore, treatment decisions should be made by informing patients, both based on their preferences and the physician's clinical judgment."

The study of morphofunctional changes in the gastrointestinal tract after various operations on the colon (an experiment in rats)

Objective : modeling various types of surgical procedure in an experiment in rats, assessing the effect of surgery on the motility of the gastrointestinal tract (GIT). Materials and methods : the study was carried out on 30 female Wistar rats weighing 200–250 grams, comparable in age, divided into 3 groups (10 animals each) in random order. group 1 — rats underwented to laparotomy (LT), group 2 — laparotomy, creation of a loop colostomy (LT + C), group 3 — laparotomy, a colonic single-row anastomosis (LT + A). Gastrointestinal motility was assessed using the gastrointestinal transit index (GTI), calculated by the formula: (length of the stained area of the intestine / total length of the intestine) x100, as well as by the results of a morphological study. Results : surgery has a depressing effect on the motility of the gastrointestinal tract, while the maximum decrease in IHT was noted in the Colostomy group: 1.08±1.4% versus 2.3±3.3% in the Laparotomy group and versus 3.8±1.8% in the Anastomosis group. Comparison of the groups “Colostomy” and “Anastomosis” showed a significant difference in this feature — p=0.002. Conclusion : modeling of various surgical procedure in rats made it possible to prove the relationship between the formation of a stoma and the inhibition of gastrointestinal motility, further study of this pattern will allow us to develop ways to prevent the development of postoperative ileus.

Types and Levels of Colostomy in Children with Anorectal Malformation

Objective: Divided colostomy for anorectal management is often recommended due to reports of higher complications associated with loop colostomy. This study was conducted to compare outcomes and complications in colostomies in children with anorectal malformations according to type and level of colostomy.&#x0D; Materials and Methods: A retrospective study was performed in children with anorectal malformations who underwent a colostomy at Siriraj Hospital between December 2003 and June 2018.&#x0D; Results: Out of 167 patients, 159 had a loop colostomy while 8 had a divided colostomy. Overall complication rates were 33.3% for loop colostomy and 62.5% for divided colostomy (p = 0.100). Urinary tract infection was the most frequently encountered complication in both loop and divided colostomies, at 23.7% and 50%, respectively (p = 0.094). The prolapse rate in the loop colostomy group was 8.8 % and 0% in the divided colostomy group (p = 0.376). Overall complication rates with respect to location of stoma also did not differ (p = 0.706). Prolapse rates were 15.8 % in transverse colostomy and 7.1 % in sigmoid colostomy (p = 0.231). Overall complications rates of colostomy closure in loop and divided colostomy was 7.5% and 12.5%, respectively (p = 0.672). Non-inferiority was demonstrated by the differences in overall complications of loop and divided colostomy (p = 0.008).&#x0D; Conclusion: There was no difference in incidence of complications between type or location of colostomy performed in children with anorectal malformations. Loop colostomy was non-inferior to divided colostomy in respect to overall complications.

Comparison of blowhole colostomy and loop ostomy for palliation of acute malignant colonic obstruction.

PurposeSurgery to create a stoma for decompression might be required for unresectable stage IV cancer patients with complete colonic obstruction. The aim of this study was to compare the results of blowhole colostomy with those of loop ostomy.MethodsPalliative ileostomy or colostomy procedures performed at a single center between January 2011 and October 2020, were analyzed retrospectively. Fifty-nine patients were identified during this period. The demographic characteristics and outcomes between the blowhole colostomy group (n=24) and the loop ostomy group (n=35) were compared.ResultsThe median operative time tended to be shorter in the blowhole colostomy group (52.5 minutes; interquartile range [IQR], 43–65) than in the loop ostomy group (60 minutes; IQR, 40–107), but the difference did not reach statistical significance (P=0.162). The median length of hospital stay was significantly shorter with blowhole colostomy (blowhole, 13 days [IQR, 9–23]; loop, 21 days [IQR, 14–37]; P=0.013). Mean cecum diameter was significantly larger in the blowhole group than in the loop group (8.83±1.91 cm vs. 6.78±2.36 cm, P=0.001), and the emergency operation rate was higher in the blowhole group than in the loop group (22 of 24 [91.7%] vs. 23 of 35 [65.7%], P=0.021).ConclusionIn surgical emergencies, diverting a blowhole colostomy can be safe and effective for palliative management of colonic obstruction in patients with end-stage cancer and might reduce the operative time in emergent situations.

Effect of Colostomy on Treatment Outcome in Fournier Gangrene: A Prospective Comparative Study.

Background and Aim: Value of colostomy in management of Fournier gangrene (FG) is a debatable issue. Almost all relevant studies are retrospective and included heterogeneous patients' groups. The present prospective study aimed to evaluate the role of colostomy in management of FG affecting the perianal region in 2 well-matched FG groups. Patients and Methods: The present prospective comparative study included 30 patients with FG associated with extensive involvement of the perianal region. They comprised 15 patients subjected to colostomy and other 15 patients who refused to perform the procedure. Colostomy was performed after the first debridement. Outcome parameters in the present study included time to wound healing, length of hospital stay, and inhospital mortality. Results: Comparison between the studied groups regarding the preoperative characteristics revealed no statistically significant differences. Postoperatively, patients in the colostomy group had significantly fewer number of debridements (1.3 ± 0.5 vs 2.7 ± 1.2, P < .001), shorter hospital stay (9.5 ± 3.3 vs 29.9 ± 6.2 days, P < .001), and significantly shorter time to wound healing (16.5 ± 3.9 vs 42.9 ± 6.9 days, P < .001). Also, patients in the colostomy group had significantly lower rate of wound dehiscence, wound infection, and flap ischemia. However, the difference wasn't statistically significant. Conclusions: Aggressive treatment of FG aided by colostomy after first debridement would result in better clinical outcome.

Assessment of Outcomes of Ileostomy Closure versus Colostomy Closure

Background: Small-bowel ostomies and large-bowel ostomies are two subtypes of intestinal ostomies based on the portion of the intestine that is exposed above the skin. Protecting the anastomosis from infection and keeping the peritoneum clean are critical functions of ileostomy and colostomy. Objective: to evaluate short term outcome of ileostomy and colostomy closures to recognize which procedure is better for diversion based on the outcomes of the stoma reversal. Methods: Two groups of 32 patients having a colostomy or an ileostomy in Zagazig University Hospitals underwent a clinical comparison of the outcomes of stoma closure. 16 patients in Group 1 had an ileostomy for reversal. Those in Group 2 who had a temporary colostomy for reversal included 10 patients with Hartmann procedure and 6 patients with simple loop stoma. During the first month, patients were seen at the outpatient clinic once a week, then once a month for the next five months. Results: As regard intraoperative complications: Amount of blood loss was higher among Hartmann’s group (112 ±18 ml) due to severe adhesions during laparotomy compared to ileostomy group (89 ± 16 ml) and loop colostomy group (98 ± 16 ml). In terms of intraoperative blood loss, there was no statistically significant difference between ileostomy and loop colostomy, although there was a statistically significant difference between ileostomy and the Hartman procedure. In the ileostomy group, postoperative problems such as wound infection, anastomotic leakage, ileus, and intraabdominal collection were less common and more easily controlled. Conclusion: Ileostomy closure is superior to colostomy closure as simple closure with small circumferential incision was easier than colostomy which need exploration in most cases.

Cancer survivors' greatest challenges of living with an ostomy: findings from the Ostomy Self-Management Telehealth (OSMT) randomized trial.

An ostomy results in lifelong quality of life changes for a cancer survivor. We describe the greatest challenges reported from a randomized trial of cancer survivors with stomas (ostomies). Cancer survivors with ostomies participating in a multi-site randomized prospective trial of an Ostomy Self-Management Telehealth (OSMT) program versus usual care (UC) were surveyed at six months post accrual. An open-ended question requested greatest challenges after ostomy surgery. Quantitative descriptive and qualitative analyses were used to examine greatest challenges reported. A total of 118 trial participants identified greatest challenges with 55 in the OSMT and 63 in the UC. Six conceptual domains were used to code comments-physical, psychological, social, and spiritual quality of life; ostomy-specific issues, and healthcare issues. The OSMT contributed 187 comments, and UC contributed 235 comments. Ostomy specific issues and social well-being had the most comments overall with UC contributing more comments in all domains except physical well-being. Word Clouds revealed post-operative and treatment-related issues and going out in public as the most common challenges in both groups. Word Clouds compared types of ostomies revealing bowel function challenges (colostomy group), difficulties going out in public (ileostomy group), and positive support (urostomy group). Fewer challenges submitted by the OSMT group provide the beginning evidence of the OSMT program impact. Dominant challenges across both groups were social well-being and ostomy care. Challenges varied by type of ostomy. Findings support long-term care and support for all cancer survivors with ostomies. NCT02974634.

Revising Our Concepts about Stoma Covering a Low Rectal Anastomosis

Abstract Introduction There has been conclusive evidence that defunctioning stoma with either transverse colostomy or ileostomy mitigates the serious consequences of anastomotic leakage. However, whether transverse colostomy or ileostomy is preferred for defunctioning a rectal anastomosis remains controversial. The present study was designed to identify the best defunctioning stoma for colorectal anastomosis. Objective To improve the quality of life in patients with rectal resection and anastomosis and reduce the morbidity before and after closure of the stoma. Patients and Methods The present study included 48 patients with elective colorectal resection who were randomly arranged into 2 equal groups, with 24 patients each. Group I consisted of patients who underwent ileostomy, and group II consisted of patients who underwent colostomy as a defunctioning stoma for a low rectal anastomosis. All surviving patients were readmitted to have their stoma closed and were followed-up for 6 months after closure of their stomas. All data regarding local and general complications of construction and closure of the stoma of the two groups were recorded and blotted against each other to clarify the most safe and tolerable procedure. Results We found that all nutritional deficiencies, dehydration, electrolytes imbalance, peristomal dermatitis, and frequent change of appliances are statistically more common in the ileostomy group, while stomal retraction and wound infection after closure of the stoma were statistically more common in the colostomy group. There were no statistically significant differences regarding the total hospital stay and mortality between the two groups. Conclusion and Recommendation Ileostomy has much higher morbidities than colostomy and it also has a potential risk of mortality; therefore, we recommend colostomy as the ideal method for defunctioning a distal colorectal anastomosis.