Advertisement

Skin bridge loop stoma: outcome in 45 patients in comparison with stoma made on a plastic rod

  • Filippo CarannanteEmail author
  • Gianluca Mascianà
  • Sara Lauricella
  • Marco Caricato
  • Gabriella Teresa Capolupo
Short Communication
  • 30 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Loop stoma reduces the complications related to anastomotic leak. The skin bridge loop stoma is a recently described technique with many potential advantages over the current technique involving a plastic rod. Our experience shows early results (3 weeks after surgery) comparing skin bridge and plastic rod stoma creation.

Methods

In 45 patients operated from January 2016 to December 2018, a loop ileostomy was performed with the skin bridge technique. We compared functional results with a prospective series of 45 patients on which ileostomy was performed on a plastic rod. The report of the routine stoma care visit at 7 and 15 days was compared, as well as the “Stoma quality of life” questionnaire when available.

Results

We observed more inflammatory changes of the skin around the stoma in the group with a plastic rod (33 vs 10 patients). The patient-reported evaluation of quality of life showed a better quality of life in skin bridge group. The rate of exchanged stoma wafers was 2.6 vs 5.2 per week in the skin bridge group (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

The skin bridge stoma creation resulted in better early management of the stoma, better adhesion of the stoma appliances, and better quality of life of the patient. As an increased number of stoma appliances are required in the early postoperative period, the economic burden of this treatment is relevant in relation to the major number of medical equipment used in the early period.

Keywords

Ileostomy Complications Skin bridge Rectal cancer 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethics approval and informed consent

This study was reviewed and approved by the ethics committee of Campus Bio-Medico, University of Rome. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in this study

References

  1. 1.
    Cohen ME, Bilimoria KY, Ko CY, Hall BL (2009) Development of an American College of Surgeons National Surgery Quality Improvement Program: morbidity and mortality risk calculator for colorectal surgery. J Am Coll Surg 208(6):1009–1010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Huser N, Michalski CW, Friess H et al (2008) Systematic review and meta-analysis of the role of defunctioning stoma in low rectal cancer surgery. Ann Surg 248(1):52–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lightner AL, Pemberton JH (2017) The role of temporary fecal diversion. Clin Colon Rectal Surg 30(3):178–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Patil V, Vijayakumar A, Ajitha MB, Kumar SL (2012) Comparison between tube ileostomy and loop ileostomy as a diversion procedurę. ISRN SurgGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Franklyn J, Varghese G, Mittal R et al (2017 Jul) A prospective randomized controlled trial comparing early postoperative complications in patients undergoing loop colostomy with and without a stoma rod. Color Dis 19(7):675–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Milner CS, Sutton C, Hemingway D (2006) The skin bridge loop colostomy. Tech Coloproctol 10:137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pace U, Rega D, Scala D et al (2014) Skin bridge loop ileostomy: technical details. Tech Coloproctol 18:855–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Saini P, Gaba R, Faridi MS et al (2014) Quality of life of patients after temporary ileostomy for ileal perforation – a questionnaire based study. Indian J Surg 76:38–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Turnbull RB Jr, Weakley FL (1966) Ileostomy technics and indications for surgery. Rev Surg 23:310–314PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dziki L, Mik M, Trzciński R et al (2014) Evaluation of the early results of a loop stoma with a plastic rod in comparison to a loop stoma made with a skin bridge. Polski Przegląd chirurgiczny 87(1):31–34Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Koc U, Karaman K, Gomceli I et al (2017) A retrospective analysis of factors affecting early stoma complications. Ostomy Wound Manage 63(1):28–32PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Caricato M, Ausania F, Ripetti V et al (2007) Retrospective analysis of long-term defunctioning stoma complications after colorectal surgery. Color Dis 9(6):559–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019
corrected publication 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Filippo Carannante
    • 1
    Email author
  • Gianluca Mascianà
    • 1
  • Sara Lauricella
    • 1
  • Marco Caricato
    • 1
  • Gabriella Teresa Capolupo
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Geriatric SurgeryUniversità Campus Bio-MedicoRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations