保护性环形回肠造口术还是结肠造口术?所有常见并发症的风险评估。

IF 3 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Annals of Coloproctology Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2023-01-27 DOI:10.3393/ac.2022.00710.0101
Yi-Wen Yang, Sheng-Chieh Huang, Hou-Hsuan Cheng, Shih-Ching Chang, Jeng-Kai Jiang, Huann-Sheng Wang, Chun-Chi Lin, Hung-Hsin Lin, Yuan-Tzu Lan
{"title":"保护性环形回肠造口术还是结肠造口术?所有常见并发症的风险评估。","authors":"Yi-Wen Yang, Sheng-Chieh Huang, Hou-Hsuan Cheng, Shih-Ching Chang, Jeng-Kai Jiang, Huann-Sheng Wang, Chun-Chi Lin, Hung-Hsin Lin, Yuan-Tzu Lan","doi":"10.3393/ac.2022.00710.0101","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13-7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22-4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22-0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":8267,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Coloproctology","volume":" ","pages":"580-587"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Protective loop ileostomy or colostomy? A risk evaluation of all common complications.\",\"authors\":\"Yi-Wen Yang, Sheng-Chieh Huang, Hou-Hsuan Cheng, Shih-Ching Chang, Jeng-Kai Jiang, Huann-Sheng Wang, Chun-Chi Lin, Hung-Hsin Lin, Yuan-Tzu Lan\",\"doi\":\"10.3393/ac.2022.00710.0101\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13-7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22-4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22-0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged 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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8267,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Coloproctology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"580-587\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Coloproctology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2022.00710.0101\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/1/27 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Coloproctology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2022.00710.0101","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:保护性回肠造口术和结肠造口术适用于接受低位前路切除术的高渗漏风险患者。我们旨在比较这两种造口的手术、医疗和日常护理并发症,以便做出个性化选择:纳入2011年1月至2018年9月期间接受直肠肿瘤低位前切除术并带有保护性造口的患者。伤口、造口和失禁护士对造口相关并发症进行了前瞻性记录。癌症分期和治疗数据来自本院大数据中心的台湾癌症数据库。其他人口统计学数据则从医疗记录中回顾性收集。比较造口术后和造口翻转术后的并发症:结果:176 名患者接受了保护性结肠造口术,234 名患者接受了保护性回肠造口术。与保护性结肠造口术相比,保护性回肠造口术患者造口连续两天高排量的比例更高(11.1% 对 0%):我们建议女性患者避免结肠造口术,如果担心造口回缩,则可能延长转流时间。否则,肾功能受损的患者应避免回肠造口术。明智的选择和灵活性比常规使用一种造口更为重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Protective loop ileostomy or colostomy? A risk evaluation of all common complications.

Purpose: 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.

Methods: 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.

Results: 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, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13-7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22-4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22-0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542).

Conclusion: We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged 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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
3.20%
发文量
73
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信