Publication:
Comparative study between ghost ileostomy and defunctioning ileostomy in terms of morbidity and cost-effectiveness in low anterior resection for rectal cancer

dc.contributor.coauthorZenger, Serkan
dc.contributor.coauthorGurbuz, Bulent
dc.contributor.coauthorCan, Ugur
dc.contributor.departmentN/A
dc.contributor.departmentN/A
dc.contributor.departmentN/A
dc.contributor.kuauthorBalık, Emre
dc.contributor.kuauthorYaltı, Mehmet Tunç
dc.contributor.kuauthorBuğra, Dursun
dc.contributor.kuprofileFaculty Member
dc.contributor.kuprofileFaculty Member
dc.contributor.kuprofileFaculty Member
dc.contributor.schoolcollegeinstituteSchool of Medicine
dc.contributor.schoolcollegeinstituteSchool of Medicine
dc.contributor.schoolcollegeinstituteSchool of Medicine
dc.contributor.yokid18758
dc.contributor.yokid221690
dc.contributor.yokid1758
dc.date.accessioned2024-11-09T23:57:32Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.description.abstractPurpose The aim of this study was to compare ghost ileostomy (GI) and defunctioning ileostomy (DI) in patients who underwent low anterior resection (LAR) for rectal cancer in terms of postoperative morbidity, rehospitalization rates, and total costs. Methods Patients with an anastomosis level between 5 and 10 cm from the anal verge after LAR were analyzed retrospectively. Clinical characteristics, operative outcomes, postoperative morbidity, rehospitalization rates, and total costs were compared. Results A total of 123 patients were enrolled as follows: 42 patients in the GI group and 81 patients in the DI group. Anastomotic leakage (AL) was identified in three patients who underwent GI, and in all of them, GI was easily converted to DI. There were 96.3% of the patients with DI rehospitalized at least one time because of surgery-related and/or stoma-related complications or stoma closure. When we did not take into account the patients who were rehospitalized for stoma closure, the rates of rehospitalization were 4.7% and 22.2% in the GI and DI groups, respectively (P= 0.01). The mean total costs calculated by removing additional surgical procedures and adding all of the rehospitalization costs were 25,767 USD and 41,875 USD in the GI and DI groups, respectively (P= 0.0001). Conclusion GI may be a safe and cost-effective method in patients who underwent LAR with low or medium risk factors for AL. It is possible to avoid unnecessary ileostomy and reduce unwanted outcomes due to it, such as postoperative complications, rehospitalizations, and increased total costs by performing GI.
dc.description.indexedbyWoS
dc.description.indexedbyScopus
dc.description.indexedbyPubMed
dc.description.issue2
dc.description.openaccessNO
dc.description.publisherscopeInternational
dc.description.volume406
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s00423-021-02089-w
dc.identifier.eissn1435-2451
dc.identifier.issn1435-2443
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85100510274
dc.identifier.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00423-021-02089-w
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14288/15312
dc.identifier.wos614303200001
dc.keywordsGhost ileostomy
dc.keywordsDefunctioning ileostomy
dc.keywordsCost-effectiveness
dc.keywordsRehospitalization
dc.keywordsLow anterior resection
dc.languageEnglish
dc.publisherSpringer
dc.sourceLangenbecks Archives Of Surgery
dc.subjectSurgery
dc.titleComparative study between ghost ileostomy and defunctioning ileostomy in terms of morbidity and cost-effectiveness in low anterior resection for rectal cancer
dc.typeJournal Article
dspace.entity.typePublication
local.contributor.authorid0000-0001-5751-1133
local.contributor.authorid0000-0002-4805-3473
local.contributor.authorid0000-0003-0316-6818
local.contributor.kuauthorBalık, Emre
local.contributor.kuauthorYaltı, Mehmet Tunç
local.contributor.kuauthorBuğra, Dursun

Files