Advertisement

Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 437–441 | Cite as

Morbidity of Ostomy Takedown

  • Andreas M. Kaiser
  • Shlomo Israelit
  • Daniel Klaristenfeld
  • Paul Selvindoss
  • Petar Vukasin
  • Glenn Ault
  • Robert W. Beart
Article

Abstract

Purpose

Creation of a temporary ostomy is a surgical tool to divert stool from a more distal area of concern (anastomosis, inflammation, etc). To provide a true benefit, the morbidity/mortality from the ostomy takedown itself should be minimal. The aim of our study was therefore to evaluate our own experience and determine the complications and mortality of stoma closure in relation to the type and location of the respective ostomy.

Methods

Patients undergoing an elective takedown of a temporary ostomy at our teaching institution between January 1999 and July 2005 were included in our analysis, and the medical records were retrospectively reviewed. Excluded were only patients with relevant chart deficiencies and nonelective stoma revisions/takedowns. Data collected included general demographics; the type and location of the stoma; the operative technique; and the type, timing, and impact of complications. Perioperative morbidity was defined as complications occurring within 30 days from the operation.

Results

156 patients (median age 45 years, range 18–85) were included in the analysis: 31 loop and 59 end colostomy reversals and 56 loop and 10 end ileostomy takedowns. Mean follow-up was 6 months. The overall mortality rate was low (0.65%, 1/156 patients). However, the morbidity rate was 36.5% (57 patients), with 6 (3.8%) systemic complications and 51 (32.7%) local complications. Minor would infection (34 patients, 21.8%) and postoperative ileus (9 patients, 5.7%) were the most common surgery-related complications, but they generally resolved with conservative management. Anastomotic leak and formation/persistence of an enterocutaneous fistula (6 patients, 3.8%) were the most serious local complications and required reintervention in all of the patients. Closure of a loop colostomy accounted for half and Hartmann reversals for one third of these complications, as opposed to ileostomy takedowns, which accounted for only one sixth (1.8% absolute risk).

Conclusion

Takedown of a temporary ostomy has a low mortality but a nonnegligible morbidity. The stoma location (large vs. small bowel) has a higher impact than the type of stoma construction (end vs. loop) on the incidence and severity of complications.

Keywords

Stoma Ostomy Ileostomy Colostomy Reversal Takedown Morbidity 

References

  1. 1.
    Wong NY, Eu KW. A defunctioning ileostomy does not prevent clinical anastomotic leak after a low anterior resection: A prospective, comparative study. Dis Colon Rectum 2005;48(11):2076–2079.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Platell C, Barwood N, Makin G. Clinical utility of a de-functioning loop ileostomy. ANZ J Surg 2005;75(3):147–151.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gastinger I, Marusch F, Steinert R, et al. Protective defunctioning stoma in low anterior resection for rectal carcinoma. Br J Surg 2005;92(9):1137–1142.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hedrick TL, Sawyer RG, Foley EF, Friel CM. Anastomotic leak and the loop ileostomy: Friend or foe? Dis Colon Rectum 2006;49(8):1167–1176.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dehni N, Schlegel RD, Cunningham C, Guiguet M, Tiret E, Parc R. Influence of a defunctioning stoma on leakage rates after low colorectal anastomosis and colonic J pouch-anal anastomosis. Br J Surg 1998;85(8):1114–1117.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nesbakken A, Nygaard K, Lunde OC, Blucher J, Gjertsen O, Dullerud R. Anastomotic leak following mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: True incidence and diagnostic challenges. Colorectal Dis 2005;7(6):576–581.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ho K, Seow-Choen F. Surgical results of total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer in a specialised colorectal unit. Recent Results Cancer Res 2005;165:105–111.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Law WL, Chu KW. Anterior resection for rectal cancer with mesorectal excision: A prospective evaluation of 622 patients. Ann Surg 2004;240(2):260–268.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bulger EM, McMahon K, Jurkovich GJ. The morbidity of penetrating colon injury. Injury 2003;34(1):41–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Miller PR, Fabian TC, Croce MA, et al. Improving outcomes following penetrating colon wounds: Application of a clinical pathway. Ann Surg 2002;235(6):775–781.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Demetriades D, Murray JA, Chan L, et al. Penetrating colon injuries requiring resection: Diversion or primary anastomosis? An AAST prospective multicenter study. J Trauma 2001;50(5):765–775.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Berne JD, Velmahos GC, Chan LS, Asensio JA, Demetriades D. The high morbidity of colostomy closure after trauma: Further support for the primary repair of colon injuries. Surgery 1998;123(2):157–164.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mileski WJ, Rege RV, Joehl RJ, Nahrwold DL. Rates of morbidity and mortality after closure of loop and end colostomy. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1990;171(1):17–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Oomen JL, Cuesta MA, Engel AF. Reversal of Hartmann’s procedure after surgery for complications of diverticular disease of the sigmoid colon is safe and possible in most patients. Dig Surg 2005;22(6):419–425.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bell C, Asolati M, Hamilton E, et al. A comparison of complications associated with colostomy reversal versus ileostomy reversal. Am J Surg 2005;190(5):717–720.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Garcia-Botello SA, Garcia-Armengol J, Garcia-Granero E, et al. A prospective audit of the complications of loop ileostomy construction and takedown. Dig Surg 2004;21(5–6):440–446.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wigmore SJ, Duthie GS, Young IE, Spalding EM, Rainey JB. Restoration of intestinal continuity following Hartmann’s procedure: The Lothian experience 1987–1992. Br J Surg 1995;82(1):27–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Keck JO, Collopy BT, Ryan PJ, Fink R, Mackay JR, Woods RJ. Reversal of Hartmann’s procedure: Effect of timing and technique on ease and safety. Dis Colon Rectum 1994;37(3):243–248.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Roe AM, Prabhu S, Ali A, Brown C, Brodribb AJ. Reversal of Hartmann’s procedure: Timing and operative technique. Br J Surg 1991;78(10):1167–1170.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Salem L, Flum DR. Primary anastomosis or Hartmann’s procedure for patients with diverticular peritonitis? A systematic review. Dis Colon Rectum 2004;47(11):1953–1964.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Constantinides VA, Heriot A, Remzi F, et al. Operative strategies for diverticular peritonitis: A decision analysis between primary resection and anastomosis versus Hartmann’s procedures. Ann Surg 2007;245(1):94–103.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    O’Toole GC, Hyland JM, Grant DC, Barry MK. Defunctioning loop ileostomy: A prospective audit. J Am Coll Surg 1999;188(1):6–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andreas M. Kaiser
    • 1
  • Shlomo Israelit
    • 1
  • Daniel Klaristenfeld
    • 1
  • Paul Selvindoss
    • 1
  • Petar Vukasin
    • 1
  • Glenn Ault
    • 1
  • Robert W. Beart
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Colorectal Surgery, Keck School of MedicineUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations