Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Difference found in interim analysis, not ethical to continue
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Diverting ileostomies are created to protect a rectal anastomosis or in situations with a risk of intestinal perforation. Currently, the application of a rod to hinder slippage of the loop is an established technique to perform a diverting loop ileostomy. However, various "rod-less" techniques have been described and are performed with similar success. The aim of this study is to determine, whether a modification (without rod) of the current standard method of protective loop ileostomy formation (with rod) could improve ileostomy specific morbidity. Secondary endpoints include stoma care, determinants of quality of life and stoma function.
Background
For rectal anastomoses within 6 cm of the anal verge, leakage rates are up to 15%. Here liberal use of protective stomas is widely accepted. Fecal diversion by loop ostomy may also be performed after extended adhesiolysis with serosal lesions and risk of intestinal perforation, in patients with obstructing rectal tumours requiring neoadjuvant radio-chemotherapy or in patients with complex anorectal injuries or fistulas. Generally, diverting loop ileostomies are secured at skin level by means of a supporting device in order to prevent retraction of the loop ileostomy into the abdomen. Nevertheless, due to the supporting rod, difficulties may occur in applying a stoma bag correctly and leakage of feces onto the skin may occur even with correct eversion of the afferent limb. Despite easier application of stoma bags and therefore reduced risk of skin irritation, none of these alternative techniques are established. In various non-randomized studies rodless loop ileostomies were described with an overall morbidity between 3 and 39%. However definition of morbidity varies significantly in these studies and randomised controlled trials are missing so far.
Objective
The aim of this study is to determine, whether a modification (without rod) of the current standard method of protective loop ileostomy formation (with rod) could improve ileostomy specific morbidity. Secondary endpoints include stoma care, determinants of quality of life and stoma function.
Methods
The study is designed as multi-institutional, randomized controlled, two-armed study. Patients scheduled for a protective loop ileostomy and meeting the eligibility criteria will be randomized to creation of a loop ileostomy with or without sustaining rod.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | Other | diverting loop ileostomy with rod |
|
| B | Other | diverting loop ileostomy without rod |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Diverting loop ileostomy with rod | Procedure | Diverting loop ileostomy with rod |
| |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Severe stoma specific morbidity rate | postoperative during 2 weeks, 3 months postoperative |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Rate of patients reaching self-sufficient stoma care | postoperative during 2 weeks | |
| Time used by the stoma nurses for instructing and assisting patients | Measured in total hours from the intervention up to 3 months postoperatively |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Length of hospital stay, measured in days after intervention | postoperative during 2 weeks, 3 months postoperative | |
| Change in eversion of the stoma nipple at postoperative days 2, 4, 6, 8, 14, 30, 60, 90 | postoperative days 2, 4, 6, 8, 14, 30, 60, 90 |
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Lukas E Bruegger, MD | Bern University Hospital,Dep. of Visceral and Transplant Surgery Switzerland | Principal Investigator |
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bern University Hospital, Dep. of Visceral and Transplant Surgery | Bern | 3010 | Switzerland |
| PubMed Identifier | Type | Citation | Retractions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10427451 | Background | Rosen HR, Schiessel R. [Loop enterostomy]. Chirurg. 1999 Jun;70(6):650-5. doi: 10.1007/s001040050701. German. | |
| 15997447 | Background | Gastinger I, Marusch F, Steinert R, Wolff S, Koeckerling F, Lippert H; Working Group 'Colon/Rectum Carcinoma'. Protective defunctioning stoma in low anterior resection for rectal carcinoma. Br J Surg. 2005 Sep;92(9):1137-42. doi: 10.1002/bjs.5045. |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D012004 | Rectal Neoplasms |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D015179 | Colorectal Neoplasms |
| D007414 | Intestinal Neoplasms |
| D005770 | Gastrointestinal Neoplasms |
| D004067 | Digestive System Neoplasms |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| diverting loop ileostomy without rod |
| Procedure |
diverting loop ileostomy without rod |
|
| preoperative, 2 weeks and 3 months postoperative |
| Quality of life (QoL) by a stoma quality of life scale | postoperative during 2 weeks, 3 months postoperative |
| Predictive factors for stomal complications | postoperative during 2 weeks, 3 months postoperative |
| Start of stomal activity in hours after intervention | postoperative during 2 weeks, 3 months postoperative |
| Number of stoma bags and self-adhesive plates needed in the first month after the operation | postoperative during 2 weeks, 3 months postoperative |
| 10757890 | Background | Moran B, Heald R. Anastomotic leakage after colorectal anastomosis. Semin Surg Oncol. 2000 Apr-May;18(3):244-8. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1098-2388(200004/05)18:33.0.co;2-6. |
| 7953369 | Background | Karanjia ND, Corder AP, Bearn P, Heald RJ. Leakage from stapled low anastomosis after total mesorectal excision for carcinoma of the rectum. Br J Surg. 1994 Aug;81(8):1224-6. doi: 10.1002/bjs.1800810850. |
| 12658485 | Background | Silva MA, Ratnayake G, Deen KI. Quality of life of stoma patients: temporary ileostomy versus colostomy. World J Surg. 2003 Apr;27(4):421-4. doi: 10.1007/s00268-002-6699-4. |
| 11518371 | Background | Amin SN, Memon MA, Armitage NC, Scholefield JH. Defunctioning loop ileostomy and stapled side-to-side closure has low morbidity. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2001 Jul;83(4):246-9. |
| 11260099 | Background | Edwards DP, Leppington-Clarke A, Sexton R, Heald RJ, Moran BJ. Stoma-related complications are more frequent after transverse colostomy than loop ileostomy: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Br J Surg. 2001 Mar;88(3):360-3. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2168.2001.01727.x. |
| 17432286 | Background | Bada-Yllan O, Garcia-Osogobio S, Zarate X, Velasco L, Hoyos-Tello CM, Takahashi T. [Morbi-mortality related to ileostomy and colostomy closure]. Rev Invest Clin. 2006 Nov-Dec;58(6):555-60. Spanish. |
| 8449139 | Background | Goldstein ET, Williamson PR. A more functional loop ileostomy rod. Dis Colon Rectum. 1993 Mar;36(3):297-8. doi: 10.1007/BF02053516. |
| 1935478 | Background | Unti JA, Abcarian H, Pearl RK, Orsay CP, Nelson RL, Prasad ML, Duarte B, Leff MM, Tan AB. Rodless end-loop stomas. Seven-year experience. Dis Colon Rectum. 1991 Nov;34(11):999-1004. doi: 10.1007/BF02049964. |
| D009371 | Neoplasms by Site |
| D009369 | Neoplasms |
| D004066 | Digestive System Diseases |
| D005767 | Gastrointestinal Diseases |
| D007410 | Intestinal Diseases |
| D012002 | Rectal Diseases |