Faculty of Medicine

Permanent URI for this communityhttps://repository.ukim.mk/handle/20.500.12188/14

Browse

Settings

Subject: search.filters.subject.loop ileostomy

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Loading...
    Thumbnail Image
    Some of the metrics are blocked by your 
    consent settings
    Item type:Publication,
    Comparing loop and divided colostomy for anorectal malformation: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    (2024-11)
    G Gerçel
    ;
    M Azizoğlu
    ;
    E Karakaş
    ;
    ;
    M Escolino
    Aim: The optimal type of colostomy for patients with anorectal malformations (ARM) remains unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the clinical outcomes of loop colostomies (LC) versus divided colostomies (DC) in patients with ARM. Methods: After review registration (PROSPERO: CRD42024513335), we searched multiple databases for comparative studies on LCs and DCs in patients with ARMs. Gray literature was sought. The complications examined included stoma prolapse, urinary tract infection (UTI), skin excoriation, stoma retraction, parastomal hernia, wound infection rate, and stoma stricture. Three reviewers independently assessed the eligibility and quality of the included studies. Meta-analysis of selected complications was performed using Revman 5.4, with p < 0.05 considered significant. Results: Eleven studies were included in the analysis, incorporating a total of 2550 neonates with ARMs, of which 1147 underwent LCs and 1403 underwent DCs. The meta-analysis revealed no significant differences between the two groups in the incidence of stoma prolapse (OR: 1.55, 95% CI: 0.63 to 3.79; p=0.34), UTIs (OR: 1.78, 95% CI: 0.50 to 6.36; p=0.38), skin excoriation (OR: 1.26, 95% CI: 0.68 to 2.34; p=0.46), stoma retraction (OR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.09 to 6.64; p=0.83), parastomal hernia (OR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.22 to 4.48; p=0.99), wound infection (OR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.10 to 1.20; p=0.10), and stoma stricture (OR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.22 to 2.18; p=0.53). Conclusions: The findings suggest that LCs and DCs are viable options for fecal diversion, presenting similar risks and benefits. The choice between these techniques should consider individual patient characteristics and surgical expertise.
  • Loading...
    Thumbnail Image
    Some of the metrics are blocked by your 
    consent settings
    Item type:Publication,
    Protective ileostomy in rectal cancer surgery - is it really temporary?
    (2023-03-27)
    Ulusoy, Cemal
    ;
    Duman, Mehmet Güray
    ;
    Güçlü Mete, Sıla
    ;
    Demirel, Ali İlbey
    ;
    Aim: This single-center retrospective study aimed to evaluate the rate of protective ileostomy closure in patients with rectosigmoid junction/rectal cancer and to investigate the factors that prevent ileostomy reversal. Material and Method: Patients with rectal cancer treated with/without neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy were included in this study. All were treated with anterior rectal resection and temporary protective ileostomy creation. Decision for ileostomy closure was brought upon predefined ileostomy closure protocol. Results: Total number of 115 patients (17 with rectosigmoid junction and 98 with rectal cancer) were operated. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy was conducted in 90 of them. Ileostomy closure rate was 73.9%. Mean time for stoma closure in patients with chemoradiotherapy conduction was 227.8 days, while in the rest, time was shorter (168.3 days), without statistical difference. Multivariate analysis revealed that endoscopic examination of the anastomosis during its creation was independent prognostic factor that affected ileostomy closure. Conclusion: More than one quarter of the patients with protective ileostomy experienced non-closure of their stoma due to various events after index rectal cancer surgery. Endoscopic examination of the anastomosis during its creation presented as independent factor affecting ileostomy closure.