Comparison between Tube Ileostomy and Loop Ileostomy as a Diversion Procedure. (18th December 2012)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Patil, Vijayraj; Vijayakumar, Abhishek; Ajitha, M. B.; Kumar L, Sharath
• Other Names: Hsu R. W. Academic Editor.; Kahnberg K.-E. Academic Editor.
• Is Part Of: ISRN surgery. Volume 2012(2012)
• Publication Date: 2012-12-18
• Subjects: Surgery -- Periodicals; General Surgery; Surgical Procedures, Operative; Surgery; Periodical; Periodicals; Fulltext; Internet Resources; Periodicals; Electronic journals; 617
• DOI: 10.5402/2012/547523
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2090-5785

Abstract

Abstract : Aim . Loop ileostomy has high complication rates and causes much patient inconvenience. This study was performed to compare the outcome of tube versus loop ileostomy in management of ileal perforations. Patients and Methods . From July 2008 to July 2011, all patients with ileal perforation on laparotomy where a defunctioning proximal protective loop ileostomy was considered advisable were chosen for study. Patients were randomly assigned to undergo either tube ileostomy or classical loop ileostomy as the diversion procedure. Tube ileostomy was constructed in the fashion of feeding jejunostomy, with postoperative saline irrigation. Results . A total of 60 diversion procedures were performed over the period with 30 for each of tube and loop ileostomy. Typhoid and tuberculosis formed the most common etiology for ileal perforation. The complication rate of tube ileostomy was 33%. Main complications related to tube ileostomy were peritubal leak, tube blockage. In patients with loop, overall complications in 53% majority were peristomal skin irritation and wound infection following ileostomy closure. Two patients developed obstruction following ileostomy closure which needed reoperation. Conclusions . Tube ileostomy is effective and feasible as a diversion procedure and has reduced morbidity. It can be used as an alternative to loop ileostomy.