Skip to main content
Log in

Loop Ileostomy Closure After Restorative Proctocolectomy: Outcome in 1,504 Patients

  • Published:
Diseases of the Colon & Rectum

PURPOSE

Routine use of a temporary loop ileostomy for diversion after restorative proctocolectomy is controversial because of reported morbidity associated with its creation and closure. This study intended to review our experience with loop ileostomy closure after restorative proctocolectomy and determine the complication rates. In addition, complication rates between handsewn and stapled closures were compared.

METHODS

Our Department Pelvic Pouch Database was queried and charts reviewed for all patients who had ileostomy closure after restorative proctocolectomy from August 1983 to March 2002.

RESULTS

A total of 1,504 patients underwent ileostomy closure after restorative proctocolectomy during a 19-year period. The median length of hospitalization was three (range, 1–40) days and the overall complication rate was 11.4 percent. Complications included small-bowel obstruction (6.4 percent), wound infection (1.5 percent), abdominal septic complications (1 percent), and enterocutaneous fistulas (0.6 percent). Handsewn closure was performed in 1,278 patients (85 percent) and stapled closure in 226 (15 percent). No significant differences in complication rates and length of hospitalization were found between handsewn and stapled closure techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results demonstrated that ileostomy closure after restorative proctocolectomy can be achieved with a low morbidity and a short hospitalization stay. In addition, we found that complication rates and length of hospitalization were similar between handsewn and stapled closures.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Figure 1.

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  1. JJ Tjandra VW Fazio JW Milsom IC Lavery JR Oakley JM Fabre (1993) ArticleTitleOmission of temporary diversion in restorative proctocolectomy – is it safe? Dis Colon Rectum 36 1007–14

    Google Scholar 

  2. VW Fazio Y Ziv JM Church et al. (1995) ArticleTitleIleal pouch-anal anastomoses. Complications and function in 1005 patients Ann Surg 222 120–7 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:ByqA28notF0%3D Occurrence Handle7639579

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. HD Van de Pavoordt VW Fazio DG Jagelman IC Lavery FL Weakley (1987) ArticleTitleThe outcome of loop ileostomy closure in 293 cases Int J Colorectal Dis 2 214–7

    Google Scholar 

  4. DP Edwards EM Chisholm DR Donaldson (1998) ArticleTitleClosure of transverse loop colostomy and loop ileostomy Ann R Coll Surg Engl 80 33–5 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK1c3ktVartQ%3D%3D Occurrence Handle9579124

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. MC Winslet G Barsoum W Pringle K Fox MR Keighley (1991) ArticleTitleLoop ileostomy after pouch-anal anastomosis – is it necessary? Dis Colon Rectum 34 267–70

    Google Scholar 

  6. SD Wexner DA Taranow OB Johansen et al. (1993) ArticleTitleLoop ileostomy is a safe option for fecal diversion Dis Colon Rectum 36 349–54

    Google Scholar 

  7. KB Hosie SP Grobler MR Keighley (1992) ArticleTitleTemporary loop ileostomy following restorative proctocolectomy Br J Surg 79 33–4

    Google Scholar 

  8. A Senapati RJ Nicholls JK Ritchie CJ Tibbs PR Hawley (1993) ArticleTitleTemporary loop ileostomy for restorative proctocolectomy Br J Surg 80 628–30

    Google Scholar 

  9. P Lewis DC Bartolo (1990) ArticleTitleClosure of loop ileostomy after restorative proctocolectomy Ann R Coll Surg Engl 72 263–5 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:By%2BA2czit1c%3D Occurrence Handle2382950

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. LJ Mann PJ Stewart RJ Goodwin PH Chapuis EL Bokey (1991) ArticleTitleComplications following closure of loop ileostomy ANZ J Surg 61 493–6

    Google Scholar 

  11. PT Phang JM Hain JJ Perez-Ramirez RD Madoff BT Gemlo (1999) ArticleTitleTechniques and complications of ileostomy takedown Am J Surg 177 463–6

    Google Scholar 

  12. DP Berry JH Scholefield (1997) ArticleTitleClosure of loop ileostomy Br J Surg 84 524

    Google Scholar 

  13. H Hasegawa S Radley DG Morton MR Keighley (2000) ArticleTitleStapled versus sutured closure of loop ileostomy: randomized controlled trial Ann Surg 231 202–24

    Google Scholar 

  14. IM Bain R Patel MR Keighley (1996) ArticleTitleComparison of sutured and stapled closure of loop ileostomy after restorative proctocolectomy Ann R Coll Surg Engl 78 555–6

    Google Scholar 

  15. TL Hull I Kobe VW Fazio (1996) ArticleTitleComparison of handsewn with stapled loop ileostomy closures Dis Colon Rectum 39 1086–9

    Google Scholar 

  16. PM Sagar W Lewis PJ Holdsworth D Johnston (1992) ArticleTitleOne-stage restorative proctocolectomy without temporary defunctioning ileostomy Dis Colon Rectum 35 582–8

    Google Scholar 

  17. S Galandiuk BG Wolff RR Dozois R Beart (1991) ArticleTitleIleal pouch-anal anastomosis without ileostomy Dis Colon Rectum 34 870–3

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Feza H. Remzi M.D., F.A.S.C.R.S..

Additional information

Published online: 28 January.

About this article

Cite this article

Wong, KS., Remzi, F., Gorgun, E. et al. Loop Ileostomy Closure After Restorative Proctocolectomy: Outcome in 1,504 Patients. Dis Colon Rectum 48, 243–250 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10350-004-0771-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10350-004-0771-0

Key words

Navigation