Skip to main content
Log in

Quality of life with a temporary stoma

Ileostomyvs. colostomy

  • Original Contributions
  • Published:
Diseases of the Colon & Rectum

Abstract

PURPOSE: The hypothesis is that the impact of a temporary stoma on a patient's daily life is determined by complications and related stoma care problems. METHOD: A prospective clinical trial was performed, studying complications and social well-being of 37 patients with loop ileostomy and 39 patients with a loop colostomy (randomly assigned comparison). Patients were categorized according to degree of social restriction. The association between the degree of social restriction and the presence of stoma care problems and complications was assessed. Follow-up was scheduled every three months until the stoma was closed (94 percent). RESULTS: There is no relation between stoma type (ileostomy or colostomy) and degree of social restriction (chi-squared test,P=0.42). The more stoma care problems or complications seen, the higher the degree of social restriction: significantly more stoma care problems were seen in the completely isolated group of patients when compared with the patients who were less socially restricted (Spearman correlation coefficient 1=0.35,P=0.003). Especially stoma leakage, peristomal skin irritation, dietary prescriptions, retraction, and prolapse of the stoma have significant impact on the patient's daily life. CONCLUSION: Stoma surgery has a great influence on a patient's daily life. There is a clear relation between the number of stoma care problems and the degree of social restriction. Follow-up of stoma patients under close surveillance of stoma care nurse to minimize stoma care problems and a careful surgical technique are advocated for good stoma care.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Fasth S, Hultén L, Palselius I. Loop ileostomy: an attractive alternative to a temporary transverse colostomy. Acta Chir Scand 1980;146:203–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Fasth S, Hultén L. Loop ileostomy: a superior diverting stoma in colorectal surgery. World J Surg 1984;8:401–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Rutegard J, Dahlgren S. Transverse colostomy or loop ileostomy as diverting stoma in colorectal surgery. Acta Chir Scand 1987;153:229–32.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Williams NS, Nasmyth DG, Jones D, Smith AH. Defunctioning stomas: a prospective controlled trial comparing loop ileostomy with loop transverse colostomy. Br J Surg 1986;73:566–70.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Khoury GA, Lewis MC, Meleagros L, Lewis AA. Colostomy or ileostomy after colorectal anastomosis? A randomized trial. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1986;68:5–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Riesener KP, Lehnen W, Höfer M, Kasperk R, Braun JC, Schumpelick V. Morbidity of ileostomy and colostomy closure: impact of surgical technique and perioperative treatment. World J Surg 1997;21:103–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gooszen AW, Geelkerken RH, Hermans J, Lagaay MB, Gooszen HG. Temporary decompression after colorectal surgery: complications of loop ileostomy and loop colostomy-a randomized study. Br J Surg 1997;85:76–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bekkers MJ, Van Knippenberg FC, Borne van den HW, van Berge Henegouwen GP. Psychosocial adaptation to stoma surgery: a review. Behav Med 1995;18:1–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bekkers MJ, Van Knippenberg FC, van den Borne HW, van Berge Henegouwen GP. Prospective evaluation of psychosocial adaptation to stoma surgery: the role of self-efficacy. Psychosom Med 1996;58:183–91.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Pieper B, Mikols C, Dawson-Grant TR. Comparing adjustment to an ostomy for three groups. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs 1996;23:197–204.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Wright HK. Improving transverse colostomy function. Am J Surg 1979:137:475–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Rowbothan JL. Stomal care. N Engl J Med 1968;279:90–92

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Khoo RE, Montrey J, Cohen MM. Laparoscopic loop ileostomy for temporary fecal diversion. Dis Colon Rectum 1993;36:966–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Khoo RE, Cohen MM, Chapman GM, Jenken DA, Langevin JM. Loop ileostomy for temporary fecal diversion. Am J Surg 1994;167:519–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Green EW. Colostomies and their complications. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1966;122:1230–2.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Deans GT, Krukowski ZH, Irwin ST. Malignant obstruction of the left colon. Br J Surg 1994;81:1270–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Feinberg SM, McLeod RS, Cohen Z. Complications of loop ileostomy. Am J Surg 1987;153:102–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Wexner SD, Taranow DA, Johansen OB, et al. Loop ileostomy is a safe option for fecal diversion. Dis Colon Rectum 1993;36:349–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

About this article

Cite this article

Gooszen, A.W., Geelkerken, R.H., Hermans, J. et al. Quality of life with a temporary stoma. Dis Colon Rectum 43, 650–655 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02235581

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02235581

Key words

Navigation