• Online Features  This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (19)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Quality of Care  • Evidence-Based Medicine  • Surgery  • Surgical Interventions  • Colorectal Surgery  • Review  • Prognosis/ Outcomes  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Gina K. Weston-Petrides, MBBS, PhD; Richard E. Lovegrove, MRCS; Henry S. Tilney, MRCS; Alexander G. Heriot, MD, FRCS; R. John Nicholls, MD, FRCS; Neil J. M. Mortensen, MD, FRCS; Victor W. Fazio, MD; Paris P. Tekkis, MD, FRCS

Arch Surg. 2008;143(4):406-412.

Objective  To evaluate postoperative adverse events and functional outcomes of patients undergoing restorative proctocolectomy with or without proximal diversion.

Data Sources  The literature was searched by means of MEDLINE, Embase, Ovid, and Cochrane databases for all studies published from 1978 through July 15, 2005.

Study Selection  Comparative (randomized and nonrandomized) studies evaluating outcomes after restorative proctocolectomy with or without ileostomy were included.

Data Extraction  Three authors independently extracted data by using operative variables, early and late adverse events, and functional outcomes between the 2 groups. Trials were assessed by means of the modified Newcastle-Ottawa Score. Random-effects meta-analytical techniques were used for analysis.

Data Synthesis  The review included 17 studies comprising 1486 patients (765 without ileostomy and 721 with ileostomy). There were no significant differences in functional outcomes between the 2 groups. The development of pouch-related leak was significantly higher in the no-ileostomy group (odds ratio, 2.37; P = .002). Small-bowel obstruction was more common in the stoma group but was not statistically significant (odds ratio, 0.65). The development of anastomotic stricture favored the no-stoma group (odds ratio, 0.31; P = .045). On sensitivity analysis, pelvic sepsis was significantly less common in patients whose ileostomies were defunctioned; however, this finding was not mirrored by a significant difference in ileal pouch failure in this subgroup.

Conclusions  Restorative proctocolectomy without a diverting ileostomy resulted in functional outcomes similar to those of surgery with proximal diversion but was associated with an increased risk of anastomotic leak. Diverting ileostomy should be omitted in carefully selected patients only.

Author Affiliations: Department of Biosurgery and Surgical Technology, Imperial College London and St Mary's Hospital, London, England (Drs Weston-Petrides, Lovegrove, Tilney, Heriot, and Tekkis); Department of Surgery, St Mark's Hospital, London (Drs Nicholls and Tekkis); and Departments of Colorectal Surgery, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, England (Dr Mortensen), and The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio (Drs Heriot, Fazio, and Tekkis).

CiteULike    Connotea    Delicious    Digg    Facebook    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

To Divert or Not to Divert: A Retrospective Analysis of Variables That Influence Ileostomy Omission in Ileal Pouch Surgery
Lovegrove et al.
Arch Surg 2011;146:82-88.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Classification and indications
MacKay et al.
OSH Colorectal Surgery 2010;1:med-9780199571772-div1-00-med-9780199571772-div1-00.
FULL TEXT