4.1 Article

Value of Routine Colonic Evaluation Prior To Ileostomy Closure

Journal

ISRAEL MEDICAL ASSOCIATION JOURNAL
Volume 21, Issue 11, Pages 728-731

Publisher

ISRAEL MEDICAL ASSOC JOURNAL

Keywords

colonoscopy; contrast enema; ileostomy; postoperative complications; preoperative evaluation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Evaluation of low rectal anastomosis is often recommended prior to ostomy closure, but the efficacy of such evaluations is uncertain. Objectives: To assess whether routine colonic preoperative evaluation has an effect on postoperative ileostomy closure results. Methods: We performed a retrospective study evaluating all patients who underwent ileostomy closure over 9 years. Patient demographics, clinical, surgical details, and surgical outcomes were recorded and analyzed. Results: The study comprised 116 patients who underwent ileostomy closure, of them 65 were male (56%) with a mean age of 61 years (range 20-91). Overall, 98 patients (84.4%) underwent colonic preoperative evaluation prior to ileostomy closure. A contrast enema was performed on 61 patients (62.2%). Abnormal preoperative results were observed in 12 patients (12.2%). The overall complication rate was 35.3% (41 patients). No differences in postoperative outcome was observed in patient gender (P = 1), age (P = 0.96), body mass index (P = 0.24), American Society of Anesthesiologists score (P = 0.21), and the Charlson Comorbidity Index score (P = 0.93). Among patients who had postoperative complications, we did not observe a difference between patients who underwent preoperative evaluation compared to those who did not (P = 0.42). No differences were observed among patients with preoperative findings interpreted as normal or abnormal (P = 1). The time difference between ileostomy creation and closure had no effect on the ileostomy closure outcome (P = 0.34). Conclusions: Abnormal findings in preoperative colonic evaluation prior to ileostomy closure were not associated with worse postoperative outcome.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available