Double‐barreled wet colostomy is a safe option for simultaneous urinary and fecal diversion. Analysis of 56 procedures from a single institution

Guimarães, Gustavo Cardoso; Ferreira, Fábio Oliveira; Rossi, Mauro; Aguiar, Samuel; Zéqui, Stênio de Cássio; Bachega, Wilson; Nakagawa, Wilson Toshihiko; Fonseca, Francisco Paulo da; Sarkis, Álvaro S.; Lopes, Ademar

doi:10.1002/jso.20442

Cited by 28 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In patients who had undergone total pelvic exenteration, have had complications related to radiation therapy (usually after radiotherapy for cervical cancer), and in patients with inoperable pelvic tumors, it is necessary to make fecal and urinary diversion (1). Fecal diversion does not offer much choice, as either colostomy or ileostomy (when colostomy is not possible) is performed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Double-Barreled Wet Colostomy versus Ileal Conduit and Terminal Colostomy for Urinary and Fecal Diversion: A Single Institution Experience

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Aims: the aim of this study was to compare the feasibility and early postoperative outcomes between patients undergoing double-barreled wet colostomy and patients undergoing terminal colostomy and ileal conduit for simultaneous urinary and fecal diversion.Material and Methods: between 1995 and 2012, we had 181 patients in whom it was necessary to make simultaneous urinary and fecal diversion. this is a retrospective study and patients were divided into two groups, depending on the technique applied for the fecal and urinary diversion. the first group consisted of patients undergoing ileal conduit and terminal colostomy and the second group consisted of patients undergoing doublebarreled wet colostomy.Results: ileal conduit and terminal colostomy was performed in 77 (43%) cases, while wet colostomy was performed in 104 (57%) cases. median length of stay was shorter for double-barreled wet colostomy (13.1 vs 18.1, p < 0.0001). median operating times for urinary and fecal diversion were shorter for double-barreled wet colostomy (32 vs 64 min, p < 0.0001). the morbidity was lower for double-barreled wet colostomy (11.5% vs 23.4%, p = 0.0432), retrospectively. the mortality was 3.8% for double-barreled wet colostomy and 10.3% for ileal conduit and terminal colostomy group (p = 0.1282).Conclusions: Double-barreled wet colostomy is a safe, fast, and simple alternative to traditional ileal conduit and terminal colostomy diversion. the technique is relatively easy to learn, and it reduces the time for urinary and fecal diversion, length of stay, and morbidity rate.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Double-Barreled Wet Colostomy versus Ileal Conduit and Terminal Colostomy for Urinary and Fecal Diversion: A Single Institution Experience

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Another alternative is the double‐barreled wet colostomy, described by Carter et al in 1989 . It is a viable alternative to the classic Bricker ileal conduit procedure, allowing the surgeon to use a single stoma, which eliminates the need for manipulating the small intestine, reducing surgical time without increasing morbidity …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The double‐J catheter can be used as an alternative to the external ureteral catheter . The use of mono‐J catheter is an option for ureteroileal anastomosis and wet colostomy …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Guidelines of the Brazilian Society of Oncologic Surgery for pelvic exenteration in the treatment of cervical cancer

Laporte¹,

Zanini²,

Zanvettor³

et al. 2019

Journal of Surgical Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Objectives The primary treatment for locally advanced cases of cervical cancer is chemoradiation followed by high‐dose brachytherapy. When this treatment fails, pelvic exenteration (PE) is an option in some cases. This study aimed to develop recommendations for the best management of patients with cervical cancer undergoing salvage PE. Methods A questionnaire was administered to all members of the Brazilian Society of Surgical Oncology. Of them, 68 surgeons participated in the study and were divided into 10 working groups. A literature review of studies retrieved from the National Library of Medicine database was carried out on topics chosen by the participants. These topics were indications for curative and palliative PE, preoperative and intraoperative evaluation of tumor resectability, access routes and surgical techniques, PE classification, urinary, vaginal, intestinal, and pelvic floor reconstructions, and postoperative follow‐up. To define the level of evidence and strength of each recommendation, an adapted version of the Infectious Diseases Society of America Health Service rating system was used. Results Most conducts and management strategies reviewed were strongly recommended by the participants. Conclusions Guidelines outlining strategies for PE in the treatment of persistent or relapsed cervical cancer were developed and are based on the best evidence available in the literature.

show abstract

“…Double-barrel wet colostomy is an option for patients that require simultaneous urinary and fecal derivation 16 . It presents two derivations that drain to a single stoma 17,18 . It is considered a technique of low complexity, without intestinal anastomosis, involving reduced surgical time and acceptable quality of life 10 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Laparoscopic total pelvic exenteration and perineal amputation with wet colostomy. A case report

Figueiredo¹,

Carvalho²,

Mota³

et al. 2012

J. Coloproctol. (Rio J.)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Advanced rectal tumors can be treated with curative intent by surgical resection of the rectum including other pelvic organs. The reconstruction of the urinary and gastrointestinal tracts depends on the distance between the tumor and the anus, the patient's status and the experience of the surgical team. This is a case of a male patient with a locally advanced low rectal tumor that underwent a laparoscopic pelvic exenteration. The anus and the tumor and other organs were excised by peritoneal approach. The uretero-colic anastomosis was performed extra-abdominally. The patient was discharged on the 14 th postoperative day and remains healthy six months after the surgery. This approach has shown to be feasible and safe. The aesthetical result was well accepted by the patient. The laparoscopic route should be considered as an alternative approach to pelvic exenteration in the treatment of locally advanced low rectal tumors that demand perineal amputation.Keywords: rectal neoplasm; pelvic exenteration; laparoscopy. RESUMO:O tumor de reto localmente avançado pode ser tratado com intenção curativa com uma operação ampliada que inclua outros órgãos da pelve. A reconstrução do trânsito urinário e do trânsito intestinal dependerá da distância do tumor em relação à margem do ânus, da experiência da equipe de cirurgiões, assim como das morbidades associadas do paciente. Apresentou-se neste artigo o caso de um paciente do sexo masculino, com tumor de reto baixo localmente avançado que foi submetido à exenteração pélvica por laparoscopia. Houve indicação para ressecção do ânus e a peça cirúrgica foi retirada por via perineal. A anastomose uretero-colônica foi confeccionada de maneira extracorpórea. O paciente recebeu alta hospitalar após 14 dias e encontra-se com seis meses pós-operatórios. O método se mostrou factível e seguro. O resultado estético foi bem aceito pelo paciente. A via de acesso laparoscópica pode ser considerada uma alternativa para a exenteração pélvica no tratamento do tumor de reto baixo avançado que necessita de amputação anoperineal.Palavras-chave: neoplasia de reto; exenteração pélvica; laroscopia.

show abstract

Double‐barreled wet colostomy is a safe option for simultaneous urinary and fecal diversion. Analysis of 56 procedures from a single institution

Abstract: DBWC is a safe and efficient alternative for simultaneous urinary and fecal diversion, with low morbidity and mortality rates, improvement of renal insufficiency, and low risk of postoperative urinary tract infection.

Cited by 28 publications

References 13 publications

Double-Barreled Wet Colostomy versus Ileal Conduit and Terminal Colostomy for Urinary and Fecal Diversion: A Single Institution Experience

Double-Barreled Wet Colostomy versus Ileal Conduit and Terminal Colostomy for Urinary and Fecal Diversion: A Single Institution Experience

Guidelines of the Brazilian Society of Oncologic Surgery for pelvic exenteration in the treatment of cervical cancer

Laparoscopic total pelvic exenteration and perineal amputation with wet colostomy. A case report

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About