Classic divided sigmoidostomy vs loop sigmoidostomy in anorectal malformations: time for change?

Purpose

Divided sigmoidostomy (DS) is the classic stoma for patients with anorectal malformations (ARM). Loop sigmoidostomies (LS) in ARM are associated with a higher risk of stoma prolapse and urinary tract infections (UTI). This is not clearly supported by literature. We compared our experience with both techniques.

Methods

Retrospective study of ARM patients who underwent DS or LS between 2013 and 2023. We analysed demographics, associated malformations, intraoperative variables, oral intake and stoma functioning times, hospital stay, complications, prolapses, and UTI.

Results

Of 40 patients, 29 underwent open DS and 11 laparoscopic LS. Demographics, malformation type, associated anomalies, surgical time, intraoperative and anaesthetic complications were comparable. Postoperative complications were higher in DS than LS [14(48.3%) vs 1(9.1%), (p = 0.02)], mostly due to wound complications [12(41.3%) vs 0(0%), (p = 0.01)]; with 3 dehiscenses and 3 strictures reintervened. The hours to oral intake and stoma functioning were higher for DS [48(39–90) and 48(24–48) vs 24(24–48) and 24(24–24), (p < 0.05)], with more days of hospital stay [36(19–60) vs 8(5–10), (p = 0.001)]. Prolapses [1(3.4%) vs 1(9.1%)] and UTIs [3(10.3%) vs 1(9.1%) (p > 0.05)] were comparable.

Conclusion

LS in ARM patients have no higher risk of prolapse or UTI than DS. DS had more complications, mostly wound infections, strictures and dehiscenses.