title: A Retrospective, Observational Study of the Adequacy of Elective Loop Stoma Diversion.
abstract: Diverting stomas are employed for various clinical indications and easier to revert than end stomas. General, plastic, and colorectal surgeons continue to debate whether a diverting loop stoma adequately diverts stool, preventing spillage into the distal limb, which does not receive stool. A retrospective, descriptive study was conducted involving all patients who underwent loop ostomy surgery (colostomy or ileostomy) - defined by current procedural terminology (CPT) codes 44187, 44188, 44153, and 44155-44158 - between April 1, 2002 and October 12, 2010. The purpose of the study was to determine if a diverting loop stoma is completely diverting with no efflux into the distal limb by examining the rate of distal limb contamination. Two surgeons identified patients at the University of Virginia who had loop ostomy surgery and subsequently underwent computed tomography (CT) scan with oral contrast for clinical suspicion of abnormal pathology. A radiologist reviewed these images to evaluate the presence or absence of oral contrast in the ostomy distal limb. Distal progression of oral contrast was deemed adequate if oral contrast was visualized within the ostomy bag or if contrast was intraluminal distal to the loop ostomy. The loop ostomy was considered diverting if oral contrast was only visualized in the ostomy bag with no oral contrast distally. Of the 202 eligible patients, 26 (13%) underwent 41 postoperative CT scans of the abdomen/pelvis. Four (4) were excluded due to inadequate exam or confounding contrast (rectal contrast, contrast retention from preoperative scan). Of the remaining 22 patients with 35 CT scans (median age 54 [range 26-82] years, 10 men, 18 Caucasian, 18 having elective surgery), no patient (0%) had evidence of distal contrast. In this and other studies, loop stomas were found to provide adequate diversion without spillage into the nonfunctional limb for the vast majority of patients and should strongly be considered as the procedure of choice for temporary diversion.
authors.affiliation: University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA.
authors.forename: Puja
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Shah
authors.affiliation: Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY.
authors.forename: David
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Mauro
authors.affiliation: University of Virginia, Charlottesville, V.
authors.forename: Charles
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Friel
authors.affiliation: University of Virginia, Charlottesville, V.
authors.forename: Traci
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Hedrick
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007081:Ileostomy / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000592:standards*; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D011183:Postoperative Complications / Q000517:prevention & control; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D016896:Treatment Outcome