Systematic review and meta-analysis comparing extraperitoneal and transperitoneal routes of colostomy-related complications.

Abstract

Background: Complications associated with stomas-including parastomal hernia (PSH), prolapse, mucocutaneous separation, and stoma retraction-provide considerable postoperative challenges for colostomy patients. Selecting between extraperitoneal colostomy (EPC) and transperitoneal colostomy (TPC) pathways is therefore essential for mitigating these complications.

Aim: To analyze the existing data regarding the efficacy of EPC compared to TPC in reducing stoma-related complications post-colostomy.

Methods: PubMed, Google Scholar, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library were adopted to uncover pertinent papers in which EPC and TPC approaches were compared. We then conducted a meta-analysis using RevMan 5.4.1.

Results: Both laparoscopic (Lap) and open approaches showed a reduced incidence of PSH in EPC relative to TPC (P < 0.00001 and P = 0.02 respectively). In addition, Lap EPC depicted a lesser incidence of prolapse, mucocutaneous separation, and stoma retraction (P = 0.007, P = 0.03, and P = 0.01, respectively) compared to Lap TPC. However, EPC and TPC did not differ with respect to operation time, blood loss, edema, ischemia, necrosis, or infection after the LAP approach.

Conclusion: The extraperitoneal approach may provide benefits in minimizing some stoma-related problems such as PSH, prolapse, mucocutaneous separation, and stoma retraction after colostomy surgery.