A Prospective Audit of the Complications of Loop Ileostomy Construction and Takedown

Aim: A prospective review of the complications of ileostomy construction and takedown. Materials and methods: One hundred twenty-seven consecutive patients undergoing construction of a loop ileostomy were included in a prospective nonrandomized computer database. Complications of the loop ileostomy were assessed prior to and after closure. Three closure techniques were performed [enterotomy suture (25.7%), resection and hand sewn (31.2%) or stapled anastomosis (43.1%)] and compared. Results: One hundred twenty-seven (73 male, 54 female) patients, mean age 54 years were included from 1992 to 2002. Seventy-two patients underwent anterior resection for low rectal carcinoma, 30 an ileoanal pouch for ulcerative colitis and 25 for miscellaneous conditions. Fifty-nine pre-takedown complications occurred in 50 (39.4%) patients. The most common were dermatitis (12.6%) and erythema (7.1%). The most severe were dehydration in 1 patient and stomal prolapse in 4 patients. Closure was associated with a complication rate of 33.1% and a mortality rate of 0.9%. Wound infection occurred in 18.3% and small bowel obstruction in 4.6%. Anastomotic leak requiring reanastomosis occurred in 2.8% and enterocutaneous fistula treated conservatively in 5.5%. There were no statistically significant differences in morbidity between closure techniques (p = 0.892). There were no statistically significant differences in complications (p = 0.516) between patients with ulcerative colitis and those with neoplasia (39.29% vs. 32.2%). Conclusions: Loop ileostomy construction and takedown is associated with considerable morbidity, mostly minor. No differences exist between technique used for closure or the baseline pathology of the patient.
Bibliographic reference
S.A. García-Botello, J. García-Armengol, E. García-Granero, A. Espí, C. Juan, F. López-Mozos, S. Lledó; A Prospective Audit of the Complications of Loop Ileostomy Construction and Takedown. Dig Surg 1 February 2005; 21 (5-6): 440–446. https://doi.org/10.1159/000083471