Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Cecostomy

Therapeutic indications and results

  • 64 Accesses

  • 4 Citations

Abstract

PURPOSE: The role and effectiveness of catheter tube cecostomy as a means of colonic decompression are not clearly defined. Our aim was to clarify the clinical indications, functional performance, and concomitant morbidity associated with tube cecostomy. METHOD: This was a retrospective chart review of patients receiving catheter tube cecostomy at the Mayo Clinic over an 11-year period. RESULTS: Sixty-seven patients (median age, 69 years) had catheter tube cecostomy placement. Clinical indications for tube cecostomy were colonic pseudo-obstruction, distal colonic obstruction, cecal perforation, cecal volvulus, preanastomotic decompression, and miscellaneous usage. Operation was emergent in 43 (64 percent) patients and elective in 24 (36 percent) patients. Tube cecostomy was the primary procedure in 47 (70 percent) patients and complimentary in 20 (30 percent) patients. Minor complications were seen in 30 patients (45 percent), including pericatheter leak, superficial wound infection, tube occlusion, skin excoriation, premature tube dislodgment, colocutaneous fistula, and ventral hernia. No patient required reoperation for tube-related morbidity. CONCLUSIONS: Catheter tube cecostomy is of therapeutic value in select clinical situations including refractory colonic pseudo-obstruction, cecal volvulus, cecal perforation, or distal colonic obstruction. Proper patient selection, careful tube placement, and vigilant postoperative tube care should provide adequate function with minimal morbidity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.

    Goligher JC, Smiddy FG. The treatment of acute obstruction or perforation with carcinoma of the colon and rectum. Br J Surg 1957;45:270–4.

  2. 2.

    Rosenburg L, Gordon PH. Tube cecostomy revisited. Can J Surg 1986;29:38–40.

  3. 3.

    Goldberg SM, Meese DL. Tube cecostomy. Can J Surg 1986;29:228–9.

  4. 4.

    Moses Y, Weissberg D, Kaufman M, Weizbard E. Acute pseudo-obstruction of the colon. S Afr J Surg 1991;29:18–20.

  5. 5.

    Rabinovici R, Simansky DA, Kaplan O, Mavor E, Manny J. Cecal volvulus. Dis Colon Rectum 1990;33:765–9.

  6. 6.

    Maynard AD, Turell R. Acute left colon obstruction with special reference to cecostomyversus transversostomy. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1955;100:667–74.

  7. 7.

    Campbell JA, Gunn AA, McLaren IF. Acute obstruction of the colon. J R Coll Surg Edinb 1956;1:231–9.

  8. 8.

    Hughes ES. Cecostomy: a part of an efficient method of decompressing the colon obstructed by cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 1963;53:454–6.

  9. 9.

    Gerber A, Thompson RJ. Use of tube cecostomy to lower the mortality in acute large intestinal obstruction due to carcinoma. Am J Surg 1965;110:893–6.

  10. 10.

    King RD, Kaiser GC, Lempke RE, Shumaker HB. An evaluation of catheter cecostomy. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1966;123:779–86.

  11. 11.

    Jackson PP, Baird RM. Cecostomy: an analysis of 102 cases. Am J Surg 1967;114:297–301.

  12. 12.

    Chaitin H. Value of complementary cecostomy in geriatric surgery. Geriatrics 1967;22:148–9.

  13. 13.

    Hopkins JE. Tube cecostomyan appraisal. Dis Colon Rectum 1969;12:379–85.

  14. 14.

    Westdahl PR, Russell T. In support of blind tube cecostomy in acute obstruction of the descending colon. Am J Surg 1969;118:577–81.

  15. 15.

    Balslev I, Jensen HE, Nielsen J. The place of cecostomy in the relief of obstructive carcinoma of the colon. Dis Colon Rectum 1970;13:207–10.

  16. 16.

    Clark DD, Hubay CA. Tube cecostomy: an evaluation of 161 cases. Ann Surg 1972;175:55–61.

  17. 17.

    Smith WR, Goodwin JN. Cecal volvulus. Am J Surg 1973;126:215–22.

  18. 18.

    Stainback WC, Christiansen KH, Salva JB. Complementary tube cecostomy. Surg Clin North Am 1973;53:593–601.

  19. 19.

    Melzig EP, Terz JJ. Pseudo-obstruction of the colon. Arch Surg 1978;113:1186–90.

  20. 20.

    Hopkins JE. Acute colon obstruction-cecostomy of colostomy? Am J Proctol Gastroenterol Colon Rectal Surg 1979;30:24–8.

  21. 21.

    Jordan MH, Sessions HR, Smith LE. A new look at tube cecostomy. Mil Med 1979;144:167–8.

  22. 22.

    Wolff LH, Wolff WA, Wolff LH. A Re-evaluation of tube cecostomy. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1980;151:257–9.

  23. 23.

    Hoffman J, Jensen HE. Tube cecostomy and staged resection for obstructing carcinoma of the left colon. Dis Colon Rectum 1984;27:24–32.

  24. 24.

    Goldstein SD, Salvati EP, Rubin RJ, Eisenstat TE. Tube cecostomy with cecal extraperitonealization in the management of obstructing left sided carcinoma of the large intestine. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1986;162:379–80.

  25. 25.

    Huber PJ, Dreicer V, Hunt J. Cecostomy revisited-still a useful option. Dis Colon Rectum 1987;30:959–61.

  26. 26.

    Eisenstat S. Tube cecostomy using a wire wrapped endotracheal tube. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1988;166:473–4.

  27. 27.

    Law NW, Ellis H. Caecostomy in the management of the sloughed appendix: a report of two cases. J R Coll Surg Edinb 1990;35:311.

  28. 28.

    Moore SW, Millar AJ, Rode H, Cywes S. Is tube caecostomy safe in the surgery of Hirschsprung's disease? S Afr J Surg 1992;30:114–7.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Bruce G. Wolff M.D..

About this article

Cite this article

Benacci, J.C., Wolff, B.G. Cecostomy. Dis Colon Rectum 38, 530–534 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02148855

Download citation

Key words

  • Cecostomy
  • Colonic decompression
  • Colonic pseudo-obstruction
  • Colonic obstruction
  • Cecal perforation
  • Cecal volvulus