Loop ileostomy for temporary fecal diversion

Khoo, Robert E.H.; Cohen, Max M.; Chapman, Georgina M.; Jenken, Daryl A.; Langevin, James M.

doi:10.1016/0002-9610(94)90249-6

Cited by 71 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous studies on loop ileostomies have reported morbidity rates between 19 and 29 % [16][17][18][19][20][21][22] and minor mortality. However, these materials consisted of both rectal cancer and IBD patients and were carried out before the TME era and when preoperative radiotherapy was less common than today.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Morbidity related to defunctioning loop ileostomy in low anterior resection

Åkesson

Syk

Lindmark

et al. 2012

Int J Colorectal Dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Morbidity related to defunctioning loop ileostomy in low anterior resection

Åkesson

Syk

Lindmark

et al. 2012

Int J Colorectal Dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It has already been demonstrated that loop ileostomy is a safe option for fecal diversion [24], although in some cases a colostomy may be the preferred option. Both procedures can be performed laparoscopically [5,7]. In each case the stoma site was preoperatively marked by an enterostomal therapists at our institution.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Laparoscopic creation of stomas

et al. 1997

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In recent years, laparoscopic techniques have been adopted for various surgeries, including stoma creation. Since Khoo et al 7) first reported the technique of laparoscopic loop ileostomy, many less invasive techniques for stoma creation, including SILS and gasless LS creation, have been described [8][9][10][11][12][13][14] . In this study, we analyzed data from patients who underwent stoma creation and discussed the indications for the surgical approaches used.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Laparoscopic versus Open stoma creation: A retrospective analysis

Hayashi

Kotake

Hada

et al. 2017

J Anus Rectum Colon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Objectives: This study aimed to compare open stoma (OS) creation with laparoscopic stoma (LS) creation considering the operation time, blood loss, time of oral intake, and complications. We also compared multiport LS and single-incision laparoscopic stoma (SILS) creation. Methods: We reviewed the demographic data, diagnosis, indications, operation time, blood loss, time of oral intake, operative procedure, and complications of 50 patients who underwent stoma creation between April 2014 and April 2016. Results: The mean blood loss was significantly lower in the LS group (7.85 18.4 ml) than in the OS group (38.1 73.2 ml; P=0.02). There were no statistical differences between the groups in terms of the operation time (LS, 72.1 32.7 min; OS, 61.2 31.2 min; P=0.23) or time of oral intake (LS, 1.0 0 days; OS, 1.91 2.71 days; P=0.17). Peristomal skin problems occurred in 11 patients (47.8%) in the OS group and 5 patients (18.5%) in the LS group. There were no statistically significant differences between the SILS and multiport LS groups, considering the operation time, amount of bleeding, and time of oral intake. Conclusions: LS is comparable with OS in terms of operation time and time of oral intake and may cause lesser blood loss. Considering its advantages, LS is a useful approach for patients requiring biopsies or intraabdominal inspection. SILS is a minimally invasive technique, suitable for patients in whom the stoma site is preoperatively decided.

show abstract

Loop ileostomy for temporary fecal diversion

Cited by 71 publications

References 24 publications

Morbidity related to defunctioning loop ileostomy in low anterior resection

Morbidity related to defunctioning loop ileostomy in low anterior resection

Laparoscopic creation of stomas

Laparoscopic versus Open stoma creation: A retrospective analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About