Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Loop ileostomy versus loop colostomy for fecal diversion after colorectal or coloanal anastomosis: a meta-analysis

  • Review
  • Published:
International Journal of Colorectal Disease Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Sphincter-saving surgery for the treatment of middle and low rectal cancer has spread considerably when total mesorectal excision became standard treatment. In order to reduce leakage-related complications, surgeons often perform a derivative stoma, a loop ileostomy (LI), or a loop colostomy (LC), but to date, there is no evidence on which is the better technique to adopt.

Methods

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials until 2007 and observational studies comparing temporary LI and LC for temporary decompression of colorectal and/or coloanal anastomoses.

Clinically relevant events were grouped into four study outcomes:

  • general outcome measures: dehydratation and wound infection GOM

  • construction of the stoma outcome measures: parastomal hernia, stenosis, sepsis, prolapse, retraction, necrosis, and hemorrhage

  • closure of the stoma outcome measures: anastomotic leak or fistula, wound infection COM, occlusion and hernia

  • functioning of the stoma outcome measures: occlusion and skin irritation.

Results

Twelve comparative studies were included in this analysis, five randomized controlled trials and seven observational studies. Overall, the included studies reported on 1,529 patients, 894 (58.5%) undergoing defunctioning LI. LI reduced the risk of construction of the stoma outcome measure (odds ratio, OR = 0.47). Specifically, patients undergoing LI had a lower risk of prolapse (OR = 0.21) and sepsis (OR = 0.54). LI was associated with an excess risk of occlusion after stoma closure (OR = 2.13) and dehydratation (OR = 4.61). No other significant difference was found for outcomes.

Conclusion

Our overview shows that LI is associated with a lower risk of construction of the stoma outcome measures.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /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.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Heald RJ, Ryall RD (1986) Recurrence and survival after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Lancet 28:1479–1482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Marusch F, Koch A, Schmidt U et al (2002) Value of a protective stoma in low anterior resections for rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 45:1164–1171

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Peeters KC, Tollenaar RA, Marijnen CA et al (2005) Risk factors for anastomotic failure after total mesorectal excision of rectal cancer. Br J Surg 92:211–216

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Giuliani D, Willemsen P, Van Elst F, Vanderveken M (2006) A defunctioning stoma in the treatment of lower third rectal carcinoma. Acta Chir Belg 106:40–43

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Gastinger I, Marusch F, Steinert R et al (2005) Protective defunctioning stoma in low anterior resection for rectal carcinoma. Br J Surg 92:1137–1142

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Dehni N, Schlegel RD, Cunningham C, Guiguet M, Tiret E, Parc R (1998) Influence of a defunctioning stoma on leakage rates after low colorectal anastomosis and colonic J pouch-anal anastomosis. Br J Surg 85:1114–1117

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Matthiessen P, Hallbook O, Rutegard J, Simert G, Sjodahl R (2007) Defunctioning stoma reduces symptomatic anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection of the rectum for cancer. A randomized multicenter trial. Ann Surg 246:207–214

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Lertsithichai P, Rattanapichart P (2004) Temporary ileostomy versus temporary colostomy: a meta-analysis of complications. Asian J Surg 27:202–210

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Guenaga KF, Lustosa SA, Saad SS, Saconato H, Matos D (2007) Ileostomy or colostomy for temporary decompression of colorectal anastomosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 24:CD004647. Review

    Google Scholar 

  10. Tilney HS, Sains PS, Lovegrove RE, Reese GE, Heriot AG, Tekkis PP (2007) Comparison of outcome following ileostomy versus colostomy for defunctioning colorectal anastomoses. World J Surg 3:1142–1151. Review

    Google Scholar 

  11. Norris SL, Atkins D (2005) Challenges in using nonrandomized studies in systematic reviews of treatment interventions. Ann Intern Med 142:1112–1119. Review

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D et al (2000) Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 283:2008–2012

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Athanasiou T, Al-Ruzzeh S, Kumar P et al (2004) Off-pump myocardial revascularization is associated with less incidence of stroke in elderly patients. Ann Thorac Surg 77:745–753

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M et al (1997) Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 315:629–634

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Egger M, Smith GD (1995) Misleading meta-analysis. BMJ 311:753–754

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Higgins JP, Thompson SG (2002) Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 21:1539–1558

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Popovic M, Petrovic M, Matic S, Milovanovic A (2001) Protective colostomy or ileostomy. Acta Chir Iugosl 48:39–42

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Lassalle FAB, Benati M, Quintana GO, Moscone CJ (1990) Loop ileostomy as alternative to transverse colostomy to protect distal anastomosis. Rev Argent Chirurg 58:160–164

    Google Scholar 

  19. Nordstrom G, Hulten L (1983) Loop ileostomy as an alternative to transverse loop ileostomy. J Enterostomal Ther 10:92–94

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Edwards DP, Leppington-Clarke A, Sexton R, Heald RJ, Moran BJ (2001) Stoma-related complications are more frequent after transverse colostomy than loop ileostomy: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Br J Surg 88:360–363

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Khoury GA, Lewis MC, Meleagros L, Lewis AA (1987) Colostomy or ileostomy after colorectal anastomosis?: a randomised trial. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 69:5–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Law WL, Chu KW, Choi HK (2002) Randomized clinical trial comparing loop ileostomy and loop transverse colostomy for faecal diversion following total mesorectal excision. Br J Surg 89:704–708

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Rullier E, Le Toux N, Laurent C, Garrelon JL, Parneix M, Saric J (2001) Loop ileostomy versus loop colostomy for defunctioning low anastomoses during rectal cancer surgery. World J Surg 25:274–277; discussion 277–278

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Rutegard J, Dahlgren S (1987) Transverse colostomy or loop ileostomy as diverting stoma in colorectal surgery. Acta Chir Scand 153:229–232

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Tocchi A, Mazzoni G, Piccini M et al (2002) Use of ileostomy and colostomy as temporal derivation in colorectal surgery. G Chir 23:48–52

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Gohring U, Lehner B, Schlag P (1988) Ileostomy versus colostomy as temporary deviation stoma in relation to stoma closure. Chirurg 59:842–844

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Williams NS, Nasmyth DG, Jones D, Smith AH (1986) De-functioning stomas: a prospective controlled trial comparing loop ileostomy with loop transverse colostomy. Br J Surg 73:566–570

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Gooszen AW, Geelkerken RH, Hermans J, Lagaay MB, Gooszen HG (1998) Temporary decompression after colorectal surgery: randomized comparison of loop ileostomy and loop colostomy. Br J Surg 85:76–79

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Fasth S, Hulten L, Palselius I (1980) Loop ileostomy—an attractive alternative to a temporary transverse colostomy. Acta Chir Scand 146:203–207

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Sakai Y, Nelson H, Larson D, Maidl L, Young-Fadok T, Ilstrup D (2001) Temporary transverse colostomy vs loop ileostomy in diversion. Arch Surg 136:338–342

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. McArdle CS, McMillan DC, Hole DJ (2005) Impact of anastomotic leakage on long-term survival of patients undergoing curative resection for colorectal cancer. Br J Surg 92:1150–1154

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Bell SW, Walker KJ, Richard MJ, Sinclair G, Dent OF, Chapuis PH, Bokey EL (2003) Anastomotic leakage after curative anterior resection results in a higher prevalence of local recurrence. Br J Surg 90:1261–1266

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Walker KG, Bell SW, Richard MJ, Mehanna D, Dent OF, Chapuis PH, Bokey EL (2004) Anastomotic leakage is predictive of diminished survival after potentially curative resection for colorectal cancer. Ann Surg 240:255–259

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Wong KS, Remzi FH, Gorgun E, Arrigain S, Church JM, Preen M, Fazio WF (2005) Loop ileostomy closure after restorative proctocolectomy: outcome in 1504 patients. Dis Colon Rectum 48:243–250

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Barrier A, Martel P, Dugue L, Gallot D, Malafosse M (2001) Direct and reservoir colonic-anal anastomoses. Short and long term results. Ann Chir 126:18–25

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Professor—blinded for the review process—for his thoughtful advice on this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of General and Oncologic Surgery, University of Perugia, P.zza Università 1, Perugia, Italy

    F. Rondelli, A. Rulli, F. Barberini, P. Covarelli, C. Boselli & G. Noya

  2. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Perugia, P.zza Università 1, Perugia, Italy

    P. Reboldi & C. Becattini

  3. Department of Radiological Sciences, University of Rome “Sapienza”, Viale Regina Elena 324, Rome, Italy

    A. Guerrisi

  4. General Surgery Unit, University of Rome “Sapienza”, Rome, Italy

    L. Izzo & A. Bolognese

  5. Medical School, University of Rome “Sapienza”, Via G. Tomasi di Lampedusa 9, 00144, Rome, Italy

    L. Izzo

Authors
  1. F. Rondelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. P. Reboldi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. Rulli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. F. Barberini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. A. Guerrisi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. L. Izzo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. A. Bolognese
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. P. Covarelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. C. Boselli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. C. Becattini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. G. Noya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to L. Izzo.

Additional information

Financial support: none

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rondelli, F., Reboldi, P., Rulli, A. et al. Loop ileostomy versus loop colostomy for fecal diversion after colorectal or coloanal anastomosis: a meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis 24, 479–488 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-009-0662-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-009-0662-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation