 |
|
Colostomy vs Tube Cecostomy for Protection of a Low Anastomosis in Rectal Cancer
Joerg Tschmelitsch, MD;
Heinz Wykypiel, MD;
Rupert Prommegger, MD;
Ernst Bodner, MD
Arch Surg. 1999;134:1385-1388.
Background Symptomatic anastomotic leakage is the most important surgical complication following rectal resection with intestinal anastomosis. Therefore, the routine use of a protective stoma is suggested by several authors. In our department 2 different techniques are performed to protect the anastomosis. Patients receive either a loop colostomy/ileostomy (C/I) or a tube cecostomy (TC).
Hypothesis No significant difference is noted between C/I and TC for protection of a low anastomosis regarding clinical anastomotic leakage rate, reoperation rate for anastomotic leaks/fistulas, postoperative mortality, and permanent colostomy rate. By avoiding a second operation (for colostomy closure), median hospital stay should be significantly reduced.
Design A retrospective review during 1985 to 1997.
Setting Tertiary care center
Patients One hundred fifty-eight patients who had undergone anterior resections for rectal cancer were studied. Protective C/Is were used in 19 patients; a TC was fashioned in 30 patients.
Main Outcome Measures Clinical anastomotic leakage rate, reoperation rate for anastomotic leaks/fistulas, postoperative mortality, permanent colostomy rate, and median hospital stay.
Results The rate of anastomotic leaks (C/I, 16%; TC, 17%), fecal peritonitis (C/I, 0%; TC, 10%), reoperation for anastomotic leaks/fistulas (C/I, 0%; TC, 13%), permanent colostomies (C/I, 0%; TC, 7%), and postoperative mortality (C/I, 5%; TC, 0%) did not differ significantly in both groups. Median hospital stay was significantly reduced in patients with TC (C/I, 28 days; TC, 15 days).
Conclusion In our patients with low resections for rectal cancer, a C/I for protection of the anastomosis did not improve outcome significantly as compared with a TC. With a properly fashioned TC and adequate postoperative management a second operation (for colostomy closure) can be avoided and the overall hospital stay is significantly reduced.
From the Department of Surgery, University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
RELATED ARTICLE
Invited Critique: Colostomy vs Tube Cecostomy for Protection of a Low Anastomosis in Rectal Cancer
Arthur S. McFee
Arch Surg. 1999;134(12):1388.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
Cost-effectiveness of Defunctioning Stomas in Low Anterior Resections for Rectal Cancer: A Call for Benchmarking
Koperna
Arch Surg 2003;138:1334-1338.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
