[Temporary colostomies after sigmoid colon and rectum interventions--are they still justified?].

Langenbecks Archiv fur Chirurgie Pub Date : 1997-01-01
W Wahl, A Hassdenteufel, B Hofer, T Junginger
{"title":"[Temporary colostomies after sigmoid colon and rectum interventions--are they still justified?].","authors":"W Wahl,&nbsp;A Hassdenteufel,&nbsp;B Hofer,&nbsp;T Junginger","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Primary anastomosis is increasingly favored even in emergency colorectal surgery. Two-stage procedures are frequently considered obsolete. The aim of this study is to define conditions when a two-staged operative strategy with a temporary colostomy is still appropriate. We analyzed a series of 126 patients who were treated by a colostomy following resection and subsequent closure of the colostomy. In 44 cases the primary operation was a Hartmann resection, in 39 cases a resection with colostomy and mucous fistula and in 43 cases a resection with primary anastomosis and proximal loop colostomy. Complications of diverticular or neoplastic disease were generally managed by resection without primary anastomosis. Protective loop colostomy was done after low anterior resection of the rectum or in cases of anastomotic leakage. Patients were hospitalized again after an average of 6 months for closure of the colostomy. Restoration of intestinal continuity carried no significant risk of severe intra- or post-operative complications. Disturbances of wound healing occurred in 4.5% (Hartmann resection), 17.9% (colostomy and mucous fistula) and 20.9% (loop colostomy) of patients. We found an anastomotic dehiscence rate of 2.4% after discontinuity resections and of 4.7% after closure of loop colostomies. Only one patient with anastomotic leakage required surgical reintervention. The mortality after closure of a colostomy was zero. The rate of anastomotic leakage of 2.4% was lower than in published series with more than 7.2% after primary anastomosis, thus emphasizing the beneficial effect of a two-stage operative strategy. In emergency situations of sigmoidal and rectal surgery or in cases of low anastomosis of the distal rectum, unnecessary surgical complications can be avoided by resection without primary anastomosis or by performing protective loop colostomies.</p>","PeriodicalId":17985,"journal":{"name":"Langenbecks Archiv fur Chirurgie","volume":"382 3","pages":"149-56"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1997-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Langenbecks Archiv fur Chirurgie","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Primary anastomosis is increasingly favored even in emergency colorectal surgery. Two-stage procedures are frequently considered obsolete. The aim of this study is to define conditions when a two-staged operative strategy with a temporary colostomy is still appropriate. We analyzed a series of 126 patients who were treated by a colostomy following resection and subsequent closure of the colostomy. In 44 cases the primary operation was a Hartmann resection, in 39 cases a resection with colostomy and mucous fistula and in 43 cases a resection with primary anastomosis and proximal loop colostomy. Complications of diverticular or neoplastic disease were generally managed by resection without primary anastomosis. Protective loop colostomy was done after low anterior resection of the rectum or in cases of anastomotic leakage. Patients were hospitalized again after an average of 6 months for closure of the colostomy. Restoration of intestinal continuity carried no significant risk of severe intra- or post-operative complications. Disturbances of wound healing occurred in 4.5% (Hartmann resection), 17.9% (colostomy and mucous fistula) and 20.9% (loop colostomy) of patients. We found an anastomotic dehiscence rate of 2.4% after discontinuity resections and of 4.7% after closure of loop colostomies. Only one patient with anastomotic leakage required surgical reintervention. The mortality after closure of a colostomy was zero. The rate of anastomotic leakage of 2.4% was lower than in published series with more than 7.2% after primary anastomosis, thus emphasizing the beneficial effect of a two-stage operative strategy. In emergency situations of sigmoidal and rectal surgery or in cases of low anastomosis of the distal rectum, unnecessary surgical complications can be avoided by resection without primary anastomosis or by performing protective loop colostomies.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
[乙状结肠和直肠干预后的临时结肠造口术-是否仍然合理?]
即使在紧急结直肠手术中,初级吻合也越来越受到青睐。两阶段程序常常被认为是过时的。本研究的目的是确定临时结肠造口的两阶段手术策略仍然合适的条件。我们分析了126例在结肠切除术后进行结肠造口术并随后关闭结肠造口术的患者。原发手术Hartmann切除术44例,结肠造口及粘膜瘘切除术39例,原发吻合及近端结肠造口切除术43例。憩室或肿瘤性疾病的并发症一般采用切除而不作初次吻合。保护环结肠造口是在直肠低位前切除术后或吻合口漏的情况下进行的。患者在平均6个月后再次住院以关闭结肠造口。肠道连续性的恢复没有发生严重手术内或术后并发症的显著风险。4.5% (Hartmann切除术)、17.9%(结肠造口和粘膜瘘)和20.9%(环形结肠造口)患者出现伤口愈合障碍。我们发现不连续切除后吻合口破裂率为2.4%,环形结肠造口闭合后吻合口破裂率为4.7%。只有1例吻合口漏患者需要手术再干预。结肠造口术后死亡率为零。吻合术后吻合口瘘发生率为2.4%,低于文献报道的7.2%以上,强调了两期手术策略的有益效果。在乙状结肠和直肠手术的紧急情况下,或在直肠远端低位吻合的情况下,可以通过切除而不进行一次吻合或进行保护性环结肠造口来避免不必要的手术并发症。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Abstracts 5th Tripartite Meeting Salzburg/Austria, September 9–11,1982 Fournier's gangrene: still highly lethal. Unstable fractures of the upper thoracic spine. Induction of heat shock protein 70 (HSP70) by zinc bis (DL-hydrogen aspartate) reduces ischemic small-bowel tissue damage in rats. Indications for and results of splenectomy in different hematological disorders.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1