This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Surgery, Other  • Alert me on articles by topic

Arthur S. McFee, MD
San Antonio, Tex

Arch Surg. 1999;134:1388.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

This article by Tschmelitsch et al is more memorable for what it does not say than for what it does. A group of patients requiring low rectal anastomosis after cancer resection has been selected for proximal protective procedures, either a loop stoma or a tube cecostomy. The article does not state the criteria used to establish the selection of these patients. Three patients, in the group who underwent tube cecostomy (group 2), are noted to have developed fecal peritonitis. The article does not state the source of the peritonitis; one is left to assume that it came from an anastomotic leak rather than the tube cecostomy. Mortality, complications, reoperations, and anastomotic leaks were not statistically different in the 2 groups. After a good deal of analysis, the article presents us with one statistically proven fact: individuals having a tube cecostomy rather than a proximal stoma spent . . . [Full Text of this Article]

RELATED ARTICLE

Colostomy vs Tube Cecostomy for Protection of a Low Anastomosis in Rectal Cancer
Joerg Tschmelitsch, Heinz Wykypiel, Rupert Prommegger, and Ernst Bodner
Arch Surg. 1999;134(12):1385-1388.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT