Advertisement

Indian Journal of Surgery

, Volume 80, Issue 6, pp 545–548 | Cite as

Midline Stoma via the Umbilicus Versus Traditional Diverting Loop Ileostomy: a Retrospective Comparative Study

  • David LamEmail author
  • Brianne Lauritz
  • Raaj Chandra
  • Chrispin Mushaya
  • Wendy Sansom
  • Tarik Sammour
  • James Keck
Original Article
  • 117 Downloads

Abstract

Diverting loop ileostomies have traditionally been fashioned in the right iliac fossa, but recently, a novel technique of midline loop ileostomy at the umbilical port site during laparoscopic colorectal surgery has been described. We aim to compare outcomes after creation and reversal of these two types of ileostomy. Using a retrospective study design, 10 consecutive patients who underwent a midline loop ileostomy were compared with 10 consecutive patients who underwent a traditional right iliac fossa stoma. Baseline characteristics, operating time, length of stay and complications for the initial operation as well as reversal of stoma operation were compared between the two groups. There was no significant difference in duration of operation or complication rate after the initial stoma formation, but length of hospital stay was longer in the traditional stoma group (10 vs 4.5 days, p = 0.04). After reversal of ileostomy, the traditional stoma group had a significantly higher perioperative complication rate compared to the midline stoma group (50 vs 0%, p = 0.03), but there was no difference in operation time or length of hospital stay. Midline diverting loop ileostomy is a safe technique with regard to formation, management and reversal when compared to a traditional right iliac fossa loop ileostomy. It is a potentially attractive alternative in the era of laparoscopic colorectal surgery. A randomised controlled trial is recommended.

Keywords

Umbilical stoma Ileostomy Laparoscopic colorectal surgery Diverting stoma Faecal diversion 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Ethics approval from the Eastern Health Human Research Ethics Committee was obtained prior to study commencement.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Matthiessen P et al (2007) Defunctioning stoma reduces symptomatic anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection of the rectum for cancer: a randomized multicenter trial. Ann Surg 246(2):207–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Karanjia ND et al (1994) Leakage from stapled low anastomosis after total mesorectal excision for carcinoma of the rectum. Br J Surg 81(8):1224–1226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Redmond C, Cowin C, Parker T (2009) The experience of faecal leakage among ileostomists. Br J Nurs 18(17):S12–S17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fitzgerald PG, Lau GY, Cameron GS (1989) Use of the umbilical site for temporary ostomy: review of 47 cases. J Pediatr Surg 24(10):973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mushaya CD et al (2015) Temporary diverting ileostomy via the umbilicus: a small case series. Int Surg 100:436–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Seow-En I, Daud MA, Seow-Choen F (2011) The umbilicus as a site for defunctioning ileostomies. Tech Coloproctol 15(2):213–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eto K et al (2013) Transumbilical defunctioning ileostomy: a new approach for patients at risks of anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic low anterior resection. Anticancer Res 33(11):5011–5015Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gessler B, Haglind E, Angenete E (2012) Loop ileostomies in colorectal cancer patients--morbidity and risk factors for nonreversal. J Surg Res 178(2):708–714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chow A, Tilney HS, Paraskeva P, Jeyarajah S, Zacharakis E, Purkayastha S (2009 Jun 1) The morbidity surrounding reversal of defunctioning ileostomies: a systematic review of 48 studies including 6,107 cases. Int J Color Dis 24(6):711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Williams J et al (2010) Evaluating skin care problems in people with stomas. Br J Nurs 19(17):S6–S15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kaidar-Person O, Person B, Wexner SD (2005) Complications of construction and closure of temporary loop ileostomy. J Am Coll Surg 201(5):759–773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hiranyakas A et al (2013) Loop ileostomy closure after laparoscopic versus open surgery: is there a difference? Surg Endosc 27(1):90–94Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Beitz J et al (2010) Content validation of a standardized algorithm for ostomy care. Ostomy Wound Manage 56(10):22–38Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Silva MA, Ratnayake G, Deen KI (2003) Quality of life of stoma patients: temporary ileostomy versus colostomy. World J Surg 27(4):421–424Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Surgeons of India 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Lam
    • 1
    Email author
  • Brianne Lauritz
    • 1
  • Raaj Chandra
    • 1
  • Chrispin Mushaya
    • 1
  • Wendy Sansom
    • 1
  • Tarik Sammour
    • 2
  • James Keck
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Colorectal SurgeryEastern HealthMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Colorectal SurgeryRoyal Adelaide HospitalAdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations