Skip to main content
Log in

Clinical Value of Preventative Ileostomy Following Ultra-Low Anterior Rectal Resection

  • Translational Biomedical Research
  • Published:
Cell Biochemistry and Biophysics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The objective was to evaluate the clinical value of preventative ileostomy following ultralow anterior rectal resection in decreasing the incidence of anastomotic leakage. For this purpose, 62 cases that had undergone ultralow anterior rectal resection during the period from June 2007 to June 2008 were included in this study. Preventative ileostomy was performed in 36 cases (group A) and 26 cases with no preventative ileostomy performed were included as controls (group B). The incidence rate of anastomotic leakage in both groups was compared. The results show that five cases in group A reported anastomotic leakage while no anastomotic leakage was reported in group B. Therefore, it was concluded that preventative ileostomy could effectively decrease the incidence of anastomotic leakage.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Chen, J., Zhang, Y., Lu, Z., et al. (2006). Prevention of anastomotic leakage following ultralow anterior resection in patients with rectal cancer. Journal of the Chinese Modern Surgery, 10, 426–428.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Eckmann, C., Kujath, P., Kraus, M., Bruch, H. P., Shekarriz, H., & Schwandner, O. (2005). Therapeutische strategie bie anastomoseninsuffizienz nach tiefer anterior Rektumresektion. Viszeralchirurgie, 40, 17–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Nesbakken, A., Nygaard, K., & Lunde, O. C. (2001). Outcome and functional results after anastomotic leakage following mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. British Journal of Surgery, 88, 400–404.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Kohler, A., Athanasiadis, S., Ommer, A., & Psarakis, E. (2000). Long-term results of low anterior resection with inter-sphincteric anastomotic in carcinoma of the lower one-third of the rectum: analysis of 31 patients. Diseases of Colon & Rectum, 43, 843–850.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Rullier, E., Le Toux, N., Laurent, C., Garrelon, J. L., Parneix, M., & Saric, J. (2001). Loop ileostomy versus loop colostomy for defunctioning low anastomoses during rectal cancer surgery. World Journal of Surgery, 25, 274–277.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Dong, X., Zhao, P., Gao, D., et al. (2002). The application of double stapling procedure for the resection of low rectal carcinoma. Chinese Journal of General Surgery, 27, 280–284.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Williams, N. S., Nasmyth, D. G., Jones, D., & Smith, A. H. (1986). Defunctioning stoma: aprospective controlled trial comparing loop ileostomy with loop transverse colostomy. British Journal of Surgery, 73, 566–570.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Riaz, A. A., Jeetle, S. S., Whittingham-Jones, P., Bobb, K. A., & Thompson, H. H. (2006). A study comparing split with loop transverse colostomies for defunctioning the leftcolon. Techniques in Coloproctology, 10, 1–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Khoury, G. A., Lewis, M. C., Meleagros, & Lewis, A. A. (1987). Colostomy or ileostomy after colorectal anastomosis: a randomized trial. Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 69, 5–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Edwards, D. P., Leppington-Clarke, A., Sexton, R., Heald, R. J., & Moran, B. J. (2001). Stoma-related complications are more frequent after transverse colostomy than loop ileostomy: a prospective randomized clinical trial. British Journal of Surgery, 88, 360–363.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Gooszen, A. W., Geelkerken, R. H., Hermans, J., Lagaay, M. B., & Gooszen, H. G. (1998). Temporary de-compression after colorectal surgery: randomized comparison of loop ileostomy and loop colostomy. British Journal of Surgery, 85, 76–79.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Law, W. L., Chu, K. W., & Choi, H. K. (2002). Randomized clinical trial comparing loop ileostomy and loop transverse colostomy for faecal diversion following total mesorectal excision. British Journal of Surgery, 89, 704–708.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Rutegard, J., & Dahlgren, S. (1987). Transverse colostomy or loop ileostomy as diverting stoma in colorectal surgery. Acta Chirurgica Scandinavica, 153, 229–232.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Bailey, C. M., Wheeler, J. M., Birks, M., & Farouk, R. (2003). The incidence and causes of permanent stoma after anterior resection. Colorectal Disease, 5, 331–334.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hai Gong.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gong, H., Yu, Y. & Yao, Y. Clinical Value of Preventative Ileostomy Following Ultra-Low Anterior Rectal Resection. Cell Biochem Biophys 65, 491–493 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12013-012-9445-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12013-012-9445-z

Keywords

Navigation