Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery
Erschienen in: Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery 12/2017

02.10.2017 | Original Article

Risk Factors for Postoperative Complications Following Diverting Loop Ileostomy Takedown

verfasst von: Anuradha R. Bhama, Farwa Batool, Stacey D. Collins, Jane Ferraro, Robert K. Cleary

Erschienen in: Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery | Ausgabe 12/2017

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Introduction

Diverting loop ileostomies are frequently created to divert the fecal stream in an effort to protect downstream anastomoses. These are later reversed to restore intestinal continuity. The goal of this study is to evaluate risk factors for postoperative complications following diverting loop ileostomy takedown.

Materials and Methods

Patients who underwent diverting loop ileostomy takedown between January 1, 2010 and April 28, 2015 were identified in the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative registry. Candidate covariates were identified and a hierarchical logistic regression model was used to identify risk factors for postoperative complications.

Results

1,737 patients met the inclusion criteria. Rates of postoperative complications were generally low. Mean length of stay (LOS) was 5.6 (± 4.5) days. Outcomes of interest were the following: overall morbidity, serious morbidity, extended LOS, SSI, UTI, pneumonia, readmission, reoperation, and mortality. Risk factors for these outcomes included the following: ASA class, bleeding disorder, prolonged operative time, race, tobacco use, gender, steroid use, peripheral vascular disease, weight loss, and functional status.

Conclusions

Diverting loop ileostomy takedown has a complication rate of approximately 20%. Higher ASA class, longer operative times, history of bleeding disorder, and functional status were identified as risk factors for most complications.
Literatur
1.
Phatak UR, Kao LS, You YN, Rodriguez-Bigas MA, Skibber JM, Feig BW, et al. Impact of ileostomy-related complications on the multidisciplinary treatment of rectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21(2):507–12.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Nurkin S, Kakarla VR, Ruiz DE, Cance WG, Tiszenkel HI. The role of faecal diversion in low rectal cancer: a review of 1791 patients having rectal resection with anastomosis for cancer, with and without a proximal stoma. Colorectal Dis. 2013;15(6):e309–16.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Man VC, Choi HK, Law WL, Foo DC. Morbidities after closure of ileostomy: analysis of risk factors. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2016;31(1):51–7.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Kaiser AM, Israelit S, Klaristenfeld D, Selvindoss P, Vukasin P, Ault G, et al. Morbidity of ostomy takedown. J Gastrointest Surg. 2008;12(3):437–41.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Mosdell DM, Doberneck RC. Morbidity and mortality of ostomy closure. Am J Surg. 1991;162(6):633–6; discussion 6-7.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Mansfield SD, Jensen C, Phair AS, Kelly OT, Kelly SB. Complications of loop ileostomy closure: a retrospective cohort analysis of 123 patients. World J Surg. 2008;32(9):2101–6.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Luglio G, Pendlimari R, Holubar SD, Cima RR, Nelson H. Loop ileostomy reversal after colon and rectal surgery: a single institutional 5-year experience in 944 patients. Arch Surg. 2011;146(10):1191–6.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Chiu A, Chan HT, Brown CJ, Raval MJ, Phang PT. Failing to reverse a diverting stoma after lower anterior resection of rectal cancer. Am J Surg. 2014;207(5):708–11; discussion 11.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Kye BH, Kim HJ, Kim JG, Cho HM. The nutritional impact of diverting stoma-related complications in elderly rectal cancer patients. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2013;28(10):1393–400.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Chun LJ, Haigh PI, Tam MS, Abbas MA. Defunctioning loop ileostomy for pelvic anastomoses: predictors of morbidity and nonclosure. Dis Colon Rectum. 2012;55(2):167–74.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Gessler B, Haglind E, Angenete E. A temporary loop ileostomy affects renal function. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2014;29(9):1131–5.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Bergquist JR, Thiels CA, Etzioni DA, Habermann EB, Cima RR. Failure of Colorectal Surgical Site Infection Predictive Models Applied to an Independent Dataset: Do They Add Value or Just Confusion? J Am Coll Surg. 2016;222(4):431–8.
13.
Chen M, Song X, Chen LZ, Lin ZD, Zhang XL. Comparing Mechanical Bowel Preparation With Both Oral and Systemic Antibiotics Versus Mechanical Bowel Preparation and Systemic Antibiotics Alone for the Prevention of Surgical Site Infection After Elective Colorectal Surgery: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials. Dis Colon Rectum. 2016;59(1):70–8.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Scarborough JE, Mantyh CR, Sun Z, Migaly J. Combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation reduces incisional surgical site infection and anastomotic leak rates after elective colorectal resection: an analysis of colectomy-targeted ACS NSQIP. Ann Surg. 2015;262(2):331–7.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Berenguer CM, Ochsner MG, Jr., Lord SA, Senkowski CK. Improving surgical site infections: using National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data to institute Surgical Care Improvement Project protocols in improving surgical outcomes. J Am Coll Surg. 2010;210(5):737–41, 41-3.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Lahat G, Tulchinsky H, Goldman G, Klauzner JM, Rabau M. Wound infection after ileostomy closure: a prospective randomized study comparing primary vs. delayed primary closure techniques. Tech Coloproctol. 2005;9(3):206–8.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Wick EC, Shore AD, Hirose K, Ibrahim AM, Gearhart SL, Efron J, et al. Readmission rates and cost following colorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum. 2011;54(12):1475–9.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Schneider EB, Hyder O, Brooke BS, Efron J, Cameron JL, Edil BH, et al. Patient readmission and mortality after colorectal surgery for colon cancer: impact of length of stay relative to other clinical factors. J Am Coll Surg. 2012;214(4):390–8; discussion 8-9.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Martin TD, Lorenz T, Ferraro J, Chagin K, Lampman RM, Emery KL, Zurkan JE, Boyd JL, Montgomergy K, Lang RE, Vandewarker JF, Cleary RK. Newly implemented enhanced recovery pathway positively impacts hospital length of stay. Surg Endosc. 2016;30(9):4014–28.
20.
Kerwel TG, Leichtle SW, Asgeirsson T, Hendren SK, Cleary RK, Luchtefeld MA. Risk factors for readmission after elective colectomy: postoperative complications are more important than patient and operative factors. Dis Colon Rectum. 2014;57(1):98–104.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Baraza W, Wild J, Barber W, Brown S. Postoperative management after loop ileostomy closure: are we keeping patients in hospital too long? Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2010;92(1):51–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
Shelygin YA, Chernyshov SV, Rybakov EG. Stapled ileostomy closure results in reduction of postoperative morbidity. Tech Coloproctol. 2010;14(1):19–23.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Saha AK, Tapping CR, Foley GT, Baker RP, Sagar PM, Burke DA, et al. Morbidity and mortality after closure of loop ileostomy. Colorectal Dis. 2009;11(8):866–71.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Williams LA, Sagar PM, Finan PJ, Burke D. The outcome of loop ileostomy closure: a prospective study. Colorectal Dis. 2008;10(5):460–4.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Perez RO, Habr-Gama A, Seid VE, Proscurshim I, Sousa AH, Jr., Kiss DR, et al. Loop ileostomy morbidity: timing of closure matters. Dis Colon Rectum. 2006;49(10):1539–45.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Wong KS, Remzi FH, Gorgun E, Arrigain S, Church JM, Preen M, et al. Loop ileostomy closure after restorative proctocolectomy: outcome in 1,504 patients. Dis Colon Rectum. 2005;48(2):243–50.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Mennigen R, Sewald W, Senninger N, Rijcken E. Morbidity of loop ileostomy closure after restorative proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis and familial adenomatous polyposis: a systematic review. J Gastrointest Surg. 2014;18(12):2192–200.CrossRefPubMed
28.
D’Haeninck A, Wolthuis AM, Penninckx F, D’Hondt M, D’Hoore A. Morbidity after closure of a defunctioning loop ileostomy. Acta Chir Belg. 2011;111(3):136–41.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Poskus E, Kildusis E, Smolskas E, Ambrazevicius M, Strupas K. Complications after loop ileostomy closure: a retrospective analysis of 132 patients. Viszeralmedizin. 2014;30(4):276–80.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
30.
Rubio-Perez I, Leon M, Pastor D, Diaz Dominguez J, Cantero R. Increased postoperative complications after protective ileostomy closure delay: An institutional study. World J Gastrointest Surg. 2014;6(9):169–74.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
31.
van der Valk ME, Mangen MJ, Severs M, van der Have M, Dijkstra G, van Bodegraven AA, et al. Comparison of costs and quality of life in ulcerative colitis patients with an ileal pouch-anal anastomosis, ileostomy and anti-TNFalpha Therapy. J Crohns Colitis. 2015;9(11):1016–23.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Sier MF, van Gelder L, Ubbink DT, Bemelman WA, Oostenbroek RJ. Factors affecting timing of closure and non-reversal of temporary ileostomies. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2015;30(9):1185–92.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
33.
Lewis P, Bartolo DC. Closure of loop ileostomy after restorative proctocolectomy. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1990;72(4):263–5.PubMedPubMedCentral
34.
Sharma A, Deeb AP, Rickles AS, Iannuzzi JC, Monson JR, Fleming FJ. Closure of defunctioning loop ileostomy is associated with considerable morbidity. Colorectal Dis. 2013;15(4):458–62.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Mokart D, Giaoui E, Barbier L, Lambert J, Sannini A, Chow-Chine L, et al. Postoperative sepsis in cancer patients undergoing major elective digestive surgery is associated with increased long-term mortality. J Crit Care. 2016;31(1):48–53.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Fazio VW, Kiran RP, Remzi FH, Coffey JC, Heneghan HM, Kirat HT, et al. Ileal pouch anal anastomosis: analysis of outcome and quality of life in 3707 patients. Ann Surg. 2013;257(4):679–85.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Geltzeiler CB, Rotramel A, Wilson C, Deng L, Whiteford MH, Frankhouse J. Prospective study of colorectal enhanced recovery after surgery in a community hospital. JAMA Surg. 2014;149(9):955–61.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Greco M, Capretti G, Beretta L, Gemma M, Pecorelli N, Braga M. Enhanced recovery program in colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. World J Surg. 2014;38(6):1531–41.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Adamina M, Kehlet H, Tomlinson GA, Senagore AJ, Delaney CP. Enhanced recovery pathways optimize health outcomes and resource utilization: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in colorectal surgery. Surgery. 2011;149(6):830–40.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Lawrence JK, Keller DS, Samia H, Ermlich B, Brady KM, Nobel T, et al. Discharge within 24 to 72 hours of colorectal surgery is associated with low readmission rates when using Enhanced Recovery Pathways. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;216(3):390–4.CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Risk Factors for Postoperative Complications Following Diverting Loop Ileostomy Takedown
verfasst von
Anuradha R. Bhama
Farwa Batool
Stacey D. Collins
Jane Ferraro
Robert K. Cleary
Publikationsdatum
02.10.2017
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery / Ausgabe 12/2017
Print ISSN: 1091-255X
Elektronische ISSN: 1873-4626
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-017-3567-y

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 12/2017

Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery 12/2017 Zur Ausgabe

Original Article

Neuroendocrine Liver Metastasis: Prognostic Implications of Primary Tumor Site on Patients Undergoing Curative Intent Liver Surgery

Original Article

Endoscopic Treatment Versus Esophagectomy for Early-Stage Esophageal Cancer: a Population-Based Study Using Propensity Score Matching

Original Article

Drain Placement Does Not Increase Infectious Complications After Retromuscular Ventral Hernia Repair with Synthetic Mesh: an AHSQC Analysis

Original Article

Predictive Factors for Lymph Node Metastasis and Prognostic Factors for Survival in Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumors

Original Article

Impact of Centralizing Gastric Cancer Surgery on Treatment, Morbidity, and Mortality

Original Article

Preoperative Carbohydrate Antigen 19-9: Its Neglected Role in Alpha-Fetoprotein-Negative Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients

Neu im Fachgebiet Chirurgie

23.04.2024 | Ablationstherapie | Nachrichten

Wie erfolgreich ist eine Re-Ablation nach Rezidiv?

23.04.2024 | Appendizitis | Nachrichten

Hinter dieser Appendizitis steckte ein Erreger

23.04.2024 | Operationsvorbereitung | Nachrichten

Mehr Schaden als Nutzen durch präoperatives Aussetzen von GLP-1-Agonisten?

19.04.2024 | EAU 2024 | Kongressbericht | Nachrichten

Ureterstriktur: Innovative OP-Technik bewährt sich
weitere anzeigen

Update Chirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Aktuelle BDC Leitlinien-Webinare

S3-Leitlinie „Diagnostik und Therapie des Karpaltunnelsyndroms“

Karpaltunnelsyndrom BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Das Karpaltunnelsyndrom ist die häufigste Kompressionsneuropathie peripherer Nerven. Obwohl die Anamnese mit dem nächtlichen Einschlafen der Hand (Brachialgia parästhetica nocturna) sehr typisch ist, ist eine klinisch-neurologische Untersuchung und Elektroneurografie in manchen Fällen auch eine Neurosonografie erforderlich. Im Anfangsstadium sind konservative Maßnahmen (Handgelenksschiene, Ergotherapie) empfehlenswert. Bei nicht Ansprechen der konservativen Therapie oder Auftreten von neurologischen Ausfällen ist eine Dekompression des N. medianus am Karpaltunnel indiziert.

Prof. Dr. med. Gregor Antoniadis
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“

Radiusfraktur BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Das Webinar beschäftigt sich mit Fragen und Antworten zu Diagnostik und Klassifikation sowie Möglichkeiten des Ausschlusses von Zusatzverletzungen. Die Referenten erläutern, welche Frakturen konservativ behandelt werden können und wie. Das Webinar beantwortet die Frage nach aktuellen operativen Therapiekonzepten: Welcher Zugang, welches Osteosynthesematerial? Auf was muss bei der Nachbehandlung der distalen Radiusfraktur geachtet werden?

PD Dr. med. Oliver Pieske
Dr. med. Benjamin Meyknecht
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“

Appendizitis BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Inhalte des Webinars zur S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“ sind die Darstellung des Projektes und des Erstellungswegs zur S1-Leitlinie, die Erläuterung der klinischen Relevanz der Klassifikation EAES 2015, die wissenschaftliche Begründung der wichtigsten Empfehlungen und die Darstellung stadiengerechter Therapieoptionen.

Dr. med. Mihailo Andric
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.