PL EN


Preferences help
enabled [disable] Abstract
Number of results
2012 | 84 | 10 | 485-487
Article title

Skin Bridge versus Rod Colostomy in Children – Comparison between Complications

Content
Title variants
Languages of publication
EN
Abstracts
EN
Due to economic problems, sigmoid loop colostomy using glass rod may cause problems for our patients for finding glass rod and several visits.was to compare rod versus skin bridge colostomy.Material and methods. In this study, 42 cases who are candidate for colostomy were included. Cases were randomly placed in skin bridge and rod colostomy group. Independent sample t-test and Chi-square were used for comparison. SPSS version 16.0 (SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL, USA) was used for analysis.Results. Of 42 cases, 20 were male and 22 were female. Hirschsprung’s disease was the indication of colostomy in 33 cases. In nine cases, imperforate anus was the indication of colostomy. Mean time of surgery was 79.4 and 82.5 minute for the rod and skin bridge group respectively (P>0.05). Retraction was seen in 2 case of rod group, and no case of skin bridge group. Prolapse was seen in 2 (9.5%) case of rod group and 1(4.7%) case in skin bridge. There were no reports of necrosis, stenosis, and hernia in both groups.Conclusion. In the skin bridge group the rates of complications were lower but the groups are too small for statistical analysis. Colostomy with a skin bridge method may decrease number of revision and expenses and may be appropriate option. Sigmoid loop colostomy using skin bridge flap may be appropriate choice in developing country. Another study with more samples is recommended to better comparison of Skin Bridge versus rod colostomy.
Publisher

Year
Volume
84
Issue
10
Pages
485-487
Physical description
Dates
published
1 - 12 - 2012
online
28 - 12 - 2012
Contributors
  • Department of Surgery, Imam Khomeini Hospital, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences
  • Department of Surgery, Imam Khomeini Hospital, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences
  • Department of Surgery, Imam Khomeini Hospital, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences
  • Faculty of Medicine, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences
References
  • 1. Gordon P, Nivatvongs S: Principles and practice of surgery for the colon, rectum, and anus. Informa Healthcare USA. Inc: New York (NY). 2007: 605.
  • 2. Masi P, Miele E, Staiano A: Pediatric anorectal disorders. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 2008; 37: 709-30.[Crossref][PubMed][WoS]
  • 3. Bischoff A, Levitt MA, Lawal TA et al.: Colostomy closure: how to avoid complications. PediatrSurg Int 2010; 26: 1087-92.
  • 4. Gharbi L, Huguier M: Lateral colostomy with subcutaneous bridge support. Ann Chir 2000; 125: 874-76.
  • 5. Kalantar Motamedi M, Rezaei M, Kharazm P et al.: An Easy Solution for the Diverting Loop Colostomy: Our Technique. Med J Islamic Repub Iran (MJIRI) 2006; 20: 137-40.
  • 6. Mollitt DL, Malangoni MA, Ballantine TV et al.: Colostomy complications in children. An analysis of 146 cases. Arch Surg 1980; 115: 455-58.
  • 7. Lister J, Webster PJ, Mirza S: Colostomy complications in children. Practitioner 1983; 227(1376): 229-37.
  • 8. Simson J, Brereton R: Temporary antimesenteric stomas without a skin bridge in infants. Ann RColl Surg Engl 1985; 67: 363-65.
  • 9. al-Salem AH, Grant C, Khawaja S: Colostomy complications in infants and children. Int Surg 1992; 77: 164-66.
  • 10. Chandramouli B, Srinivasan K, Jagdish S et al.: Morbidity and mortality of colostomy and its closure in children. J Pediatr Surg 2004; 39: 596-99.[Crossref]
  • 11. Khan K, Younas M, Waheed T: Management of colostomies in infancy. J Postgraduate Med Institute 2011; 17: 7-10.
  • 12. Nour S, Beck J, Stringer MD: Colostomy complications in infants and children. Ann R Coll SurgEngl 1996; 78: 526-30.
Document Type
Publication order reference
Identifiers
YADDA identifier
bwmeta1.element.-psjd-doi-10_2478_v10035-012-0082-4
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.