Cargando…

Comparison between Tube Ileostomy and Loop Ileostomy as a Diversion Procedure

Aim. Loop ileostomy has high complication rates and causes much patient inconvenience. This study was performed to compare the outcome of tube versus loop ileostomy in management of ileal perforations. Patients and Methods. From July 2008 to July 2011, all patients with ileal perforation on laparoto...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Patil, Vijayraj, Vijayakumar, Abhishek, Ajitha, M. B., Kumar L, Sharath
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: International Scholarly Research Network 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3539443/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23320194
http://dx.doi.org/10.5402/2012/547523
_version_ 1782255087357263872
author Patil, Vijayraj
Vijayakumar, Abhishek
Ajitha, M. B.
Kumar L, Sharath
author_facet Patil, Vijayraj
Vijayakumar, Abhishek
Ajitha, M. B.
Kumar L, Sharath
author_sort Patil, Vijayraj
collection PubMed
description Aim. Loop ileostomy has high complication rates and causes much patient inconvenience. This study was performed to compare the outcome of tube versus loop ileostomy in management of ileal perforations. Patients and Methods. From July 2008 to July 2011, all patients with ileal perforation on laparotomy where a defunctioning proximal protective loop ileostomy was considered advisable were chosen for study. Patients were randomly assigned to undergo either tube ileostomy or classical loop ileostomy as the diversion procedure. Tube ileostomy was constructed in the fashion of feeding jejunostomy, with postoperative saline irrigation. Results. A total of 60 diversion procedures were performed over the period with 30 for each of tube and loop ileostomy. Typhoid and tuberculosis formed the most common etiology for ileal perforation. The complication rate of tube ileostomy was 33%. Main complications related to tube ileostomy were peritubal leak, tube blockage. In patients with loop, overall complications in 53% majority were peristomal skin irritation and wound infection following ileostomy closure. Two patients developed obstruction following ileostomy closure which needed reoperation. Conclusions. Tube ileostomy is effective and feasible as a diversion procedure and has reduced morbidity. It can be used as an alternative to loop ileostomy.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3539443
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher International Scholarly Research Network
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-35394432013-01-14 Comparison between Tube Ileostomy and Loop Ileostomy as a Diversion Procedure Patil, Vijayraj Vijayakumar, Abhishek Ajitha, M. B. Kumar L, Sharath ISRN Surg Clinical Study Aim. Loop ileostomy has high complication rates and causes much patient inconvenience. This study was performed to compare the outcome of tube versus loop ileostomy in management of ileal perforations. Patients and Methods. From July 2008 to July 2011, all patients with ileal perforation on laparotomy where a defunctioning proximal protective loop ileostomy was considered advisable were chosen for study. Patients were randomly assigned to undergo either tube ileostomy or classical loop ileostomy as the diversion procedure. Tube ileostomy was constructed in the fashion of feeding jejunostomy, with postoperative saline irrigation. Results. A total of 60 diversion procedures were performed over the period with 30 for each of tube and loop ileostomy. Typhoid and tuberculosis formed the most common etiology for ileal perforation. The complication rate of tube ileostomy was 33%. Main complications related to tube ileostomy were peritubal leak, tube blockage. In patients with loop, overall complications in 53% majority were peristomal skin irritation and wound infection following ileostomy closure. Two patients developed obstruction following ileostomy closure which needed reoperation. Conclusions. Tube ileostomy is effective and feasible as a diversion procedure and has reduced morbidity. It can be used as an alternative to loop ileostomy. International Scholarly Research Network 2012-12-18 /pmc/articles/PMC3539443/ /pubmed/23320194 http://dx.doi.org/10.5402/2012/547523 Text en Copyright © 2012 Vijayraj Patil et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Clinical Study
Patil, Vijayraj
Vijayakumar, Abhishek
Ajitha, M. B.
Kumar L, Sharath
Comparison between Tube Ileostomy and Loop Ileostomy as a Diversion Procedure
title Comparison between Tube Ileostomy and Loop Ileostomy as a Diversion Procedure
title_full Comparison between Tube Ileostomy and Loop Ileostomy as a Diversion Procedure
title_fullStr Comparison between Tube Ileostomy and Loop Ileostomy as a Diversion Procedure
title_full_unstemmed Comparison between Tube Ileostomy and Loop Ileostomy as a Diversion Procedure
title_short Comparison between Tube Ileostomy and Loop Ileostomy as a Diversion Procedure
title_sort comparison between tube ileostomy and loop ileostomy as a diversion procedure
topic Clinical Study
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3539443/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23320194
http://dx.doi.org/10.5402/2012/547523
work_keys_str_mv AT patilvijayraj comparisonbetweentubeileostomyandloopileostomyasadiversionprocedure
AT vijayakumarabhishek comparisonbetweentubeileostomyandloopileostomyasadiversionprocedure
AT ajithamb comparisonbetweentubeileostomyandloopileostomyasadiversionprocedure
AT kumarlsharath comparisonbetweentubeileostomyandloopileostomyasadiversionprocedure