EARLY POSTOPERATIVE OUTCOMES IN PATIENTS UNDERGOING LAPAROTOMY AND ILEOSTOMY FOR ILEAL PERFORATION: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY

Main Article Content

Fida Ahmed
Imam Bakhsh
Irshad Ahmed
Asghar Ali
Nazia Naseer
Saiqa Rafiq

Keywords

.

Abstract

Background: Although ileostomy is a life-saving procedure and is often used in infectious as well as malignant diseases, it is responsible for causing various early and late effects that affect patients' physical, mental, and social well-being. Indications in general vary geographically, with infectious causes like enteric fever and tuberculosis being prevalent in Pakistan. Complications such as peristomal skin excoriation, stoma retraction, and electrolyte imbalance are frequent, with the frequency of reports significantly different among studies.


Objective: To detect early postoperative problems in individuals who require laparotomy and ileostomy due to ILeaL perforation.


Study Design: This is retrospective study.


Duration and place of study: This study was conducted in Surgical unit 4 Bolan Medical Complex Hospital Quetta from March 2023 to March 2024.


Methodology: This retrospective study was carried out through non-probability consecutive sampling and involved patients aged 20-60 years with ILeaL perforation. Informed consent was obtained, and most of the patients had ailments that took between 24 to 72 hours. Wound dehiscence, wound infection, stoma retraction, peristomal skin excoriation, and electrolyte imbalance were some of the initial postoperative issues observed in two weeks. Information was gathered and processed employing SPSS version 26.


Results: There were a total of 80 patients involved in this research. All the participants of this study were aged from 20 years to 60 years. The mean age calculated was 33.17 years. The average time of the disease was found to be 37.10 hours. Majority of the participants were male (53.75%). Ileal perforation, responsible for peritonitis, occurs most often in middle-aged to young adults. In our study, the age group 20-40 developed more cases of ileal perforation-induced peritonitis. Complications were seen in a total of 57.5% cases. Amongst those, the most common complication, related to ileostomy, was wound infection.


Conclusion: In total, 57.5% of cases were having complications, and wound infection emerged as the most common ileostomy-related complication.

Abstract 60 | Pdf Downloads 30

References

1. Pokhariya BM, Ankip S, Gupta K, Sultan M. TO STUDY COMPLICATIONS OF ILEOSTOMY IN PATIENTS OPERATED FOR PERFORATION PERITONITIS: OBSERVATIONAL STUDY. Int J Acad Med Pharm. 2024;6(5):500-4.
2. Begum M, Majid MA, Joarder RH, Rahman M, Debnath BC, Mohammad AS, Begum W, Mohammad D. Post-Operative Complications of Illeal Perforation: Experienced of 100 Patients in Bangladesh. Journal of Current and Advance Medical Research. 2016 Aug 20;3(1):2-5.
3. Verma H, Pandey S, Sheoran KD, Marwah S. Research Article Surgical Audit of Patients with Ileal Perforations Requiring Ileostomy in a Tertiary Care Hospital in India.
4. Babu RG, Malolan A, Chowdary PB. Ileostomy for non-traumatic ileal perforations: Is this the beginning of the end?. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research: JCDR. 2016 Mar 1;10(3):PC23.
5. Verma H, Pandey S, Sheoran KD, Marwah S. Surgical audit of patients with ileal perforations requiring ileostomy in a Tertiary Care Hospital in India. Surgery research and practice. 2015;2015(1):351548.
6. Kappikeri VS, Ingalalli VV. Analysis of Outcome of Surgical Management in Ileal Perforation with and Without Ileostomy. Sch. J. App. Med. Sci. 2016;4(4B):1199-207.
7. Gouri R. ASSESSMENT OF THE SURGICAL OUTCOME AND COMPLICATIONS AMONG PATIENTS OF ILEAL PERFORATION. Education (ASME). 2015 Oct;2(4):212.
8. Rahman K, Krishnaswamy J, Muthukumaran G, Prakash S. A comparative study on outcome of ileal perforation after primary perforation closure and resection and ileostomy. International Surgery Journal. 2018 Feb;5(2):445-51.
9. Muneer A, Shaikh AR, Shaikh GA. Various complications in ileostomy construction. World Applied Sci J. 2007;2:190-3
10. Saha GC, Azam MA, Rashid MS, Dey D, Begum M, Al Mamun MH, Chhanda CS. Aetiology and Outcome of Resection and Primary Anastomosis in Multiple Ileal Perforation. Sir Salimullah Medical College Journal. 2021;29(2):153-7.
11. Kaider-Person O, Person B, Waxner SD. Complications of construction and closure of temporary loop ileostomy. J Ann Coll Surg. 2005;201:759-73.
12. Speirs M, Leung E, Hughes D, Robertson I. Ileostomy rod-is bridge too far? Colorectal Dis. 2006;8:484-7.
13. Hussain SG, Cataldo TE. Late Stomal complications. Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2008;21:31-40.
14. Abcarian H, Peart RK. Stomas. Surg North Am. 1988;68:1295-305.
15. Duchesne JC, Wang YZ, Weintraub SL, Boyle M. Stoma complications –a multivariateanalysis. Ann Surg. 2002;68:961- 6.
16. Riou JP, Cohen JR, Johnson H Jr. Factors influencing wound dehiscence. Am J Surg. 1992;163:324-30.
17. Webster C, Neumayer L, Smout R, Horn S, Daley J, Henderson W, et al. Prognostic models of abdominal wound dehiscence after laparotomy. J Surg Res. 2003;109:130- 7.
18. Wexner SD, Paranw DA, Johansen OB. Loop ileostomy is a safe option for faecal diversion. Dis Colon Rectum. 1993;36:349- 54.
19. Hallbook OP, Matthiessen T, Leinskold PO. Safety of the temporary loop ileostomy. Colorectal Dis. 2002;4:361-4.
20. Edwards DP, Leppington-Clarke A, Sexton R, Heald RJ, Moran BJ. Stoma-related complications are more frequent after transverse colostomy than loop ileostomy: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Br J Surg. 2001;88:360-3.

Most read articles by the same author(s)