Arai S, Yamaoka Y, Shiomi A, Kagawa H, Hino H, Manabe S, Chen K, Nanishi K, Maeda C, Notsu A, Kinugasa Y. Efficacy of laparoscopic surgery for loop colostomy: a propensity-score-matched analysis.
Tech Coloproctol 2023;
27:1319-1326. [PMID:
37725263 DOI:
10.1007/s10151-023-02856-5]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/03/2023] [Accepted: 08/09/2023] [Indexed: 09/21/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE
Colostomy is a common procedure for fecal diversion, but the optimal colostomy approach is unclear in terms of surgical outcomes and stoma-related complications. The purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy and feasibility of laparoscopic loop colostomy.
METHODS
This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent loop colostomy at Shizuoka Cancer Center in Japan between April 2010 and March 2022. Patients were divided into two groups based on surgical approach: the laparoscopic (LAP) and open (OPEN) groups. Surgical outcomes and the incidences of stoma-related complications such as stomal prolapse (SP), parastomal hernia (PSH), and skin disorders (SD) were compared with and without propensity score matching.
RESULTS
Of the 388 eligible patients, 180 (46%) were in the LAP group and 208 (54%) were in the OPEN group. The male-to-female ratio was 5.5:4.5 in the Lap group and was 5.3:4.7 in the OPEN group, respectively. The median age was 68 years (range, 31-88 years) in the LAP group and 65 years (range, 23-93 years) in the OPEN group, respectively. The LAP group, compared with the OPEN group, had a shorter operative time and lower incidences of surgical site infection (3.9% versus 16.3%, respectively; p < 0.01) and SD (11.7% versus 24.5%, respectively; p < 0.01). There was no significant difference between the LAP and OPEN groups in the incidence of SP (17.3% versus 17.3%, respectively) or PSH (8.9% versus 6.7%, respectively). After propensity score matching, the incidences of surgical site infection and SD were significantly lower in the LAP group than in the OPEN group, while there were no significant differences in the operative time or the incidences of SP and PSH.
CONCLUSION
Our results suggest that laparoscopic surgery could be beneficial and feasible in loop colostomy.
Collapse