title: Comparison of loop versus end ileostomy for fecal diversion after restorative proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  The goal of this study was to compare the benefits versus complications of temporary loop ileostomies and end ileostomies in a consecutive series of patients undergoing colectomy and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis.
  
  
  METHODS
  A retrospective review was performed of all patients undergoing restorative proctocolectomy with diverting ileostomy for ulcerative colitis at the UCLA Medical Center during a 4-year period. An end ileostomy (EI) was used for 38 patients and a loop ileostomy (LI) for 39. All patients had a J pouch, with all EI patients having a hand-sewn ileoanal anastomosis, and 33 LI patients having a double-stapled anal anastomosis. EI closure was performed through a laparotomy, and LI closure was performed through a periileostomy incision.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The mean operative time for EI closure was 157 minutes, and for LI closure was 103 minutes. The wound infection rate after EI closure was 5.3% and after LI was 10.3%. For EI patients, 2 of 38 patients required reoperation, compared with 5 of 39 for LI. The mean hospital stay after EI closure was 6.7 days, and after LI closure was 7.1 days. Peristomal skin irritation was more severe, more prolonged, and occurred in more than twice as many LI as EI patients. Home ostomy nurse care was necessary for a mean of two visits for EI patients and five visits for LI patients. The cost ofostomy supplies and care was more than double for LI patients compared with those with EI. Patient satisfaction and ability to resume physical and social activities early after ileostomy construction were much more favorable for EI than LI patients.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The benefit of shorter operating time for LI closure compared with EI closure is often outweighed by the complications and costs of LI stomal care and patient dissatisfaction. EI should be considered more frequently for temporary ileal diversion after restorative proctocolectomy.
authors.affiliation: Department of Surgery, UCLA School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
authors.forename: E W
authors.initials: EW
authors.lastname: Fonkalsrud
authors.forename: A
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Thakur
authors.forename: L
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Roof
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D002648:Child; D003093:Colitis, Ulcerative / Q000601:surgery*; D003365:Costs and Cost Analysis; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007081:Ileostomy / Q000191:economics / Q000379:methods*; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D011183:Postoperative Complications; D016737:Proctocolectomy, Restorative; D016896:Treatment Outcome