[Intestinal stomas--indications, stoma types, surgical technique]

The formation of an intestinal stoma is one of the most frequent operations in visceral surgery. Despite new operative techniques and a more restrictive use of the stoma, the stoma formation remains an often necessary surgical procedure, which results to a dramatic change in the patients' life. The stoma formation and its later closure are associated with a high morbidity. Many complications, such as stoma necrosis, stoma retraction or stoma prolapse, are related to surgical mistakes made during stoma formation. These complications are therefore largely avoidable. The stoma formation needs careful planning together with a professional stoma nursing team. Moreover, it is mandatory that the stoma formation is made with great care and that it meticulously follows the well established surgical principles. A perfectly placed, technically correctly fashioned and easy to care for stoma is essential for a good patients'quality of life.

Continent urinary diversion

During the last decade continent urinary diversion, especially orthotopic bladder substitution has become increasingly popular following radical cystectomy for bladder cancer. In general, if sphincter sparing surgery is possible, orthotopic bladder substitution is performed, if not then continent catheterisable reservoirs are a viable option. Strict patient selection criteria and improved surgical technique have had a positive influence on outcome, not only on survival but also on quality of life issues. It is becoming increasingly obvious, that a nerve sparing surgical technique not only improves sexual function but also continence. In addition, the length of the intestinal segment has an influence on continence and the degree of metabolic consequences, which are discussed in detail. Postoperative surveillance and instruction of patients is of utmost value for good functional results. Overall patient satisfaction and quality of life seem comparable in the various types of continent urinary diversions, and improved when compared to a urinary stoma. Continent urinary diversion offers a good quality of life with few long-term complications and should be considered the treatment of choice in the majority of patients, independent of sex.

Is a sustaining rod necessary for diverting loop ileostomy?

Objective: Whether or not a protective stoma reduces the rate of anastomotic leakage after distal colorectal anastomosis is still discussed controversially. It does however facilitate clinical management once leakage has occurred. Loop ileostomies seem to be associated with a lower morbidity and a better quality of life compared to loop colostomies. Generally, diverting loop ileostomies are secured at skin level by means of a supporting device in order to prevent retraction of the ileostomy into the abdomen. However, due to the supporting rod, difficulties may occur in applying a stoma bag correctly and leakage of faeces onto the skin may occur even with correct eversion of the afferent limb. Our aim was to compare morbidity and time to self-sufficient stoma-care in patients having a loop ileostomy with rod to those without rod. Methods: A total of 60 patients necessitating loop ileostomy were analyzed. Patients received surgery in of the two involved institutions according to inhouse standard procedures. 30 patients had an ileostomy with rod (VCHK Inselspital) and a further 30 without rod (KSW Winterthur). Morbidity and time to self-sufficiency regarding stoma care was analyzed during the first 90 postoperative days. Morbidity was determined according to a scoring system ranging from 0 to 4 points for any given set of possible complications (bleeding, necrosis, skin irritation, abscess, stenosis, retraction, fistula, prolapse, parastomal hernia, incomplete diversion), where 0 = no complication and 4 = severe complication. Continuous variables were expressed as median (95% Confidence Interval). For comparisons between the groups the Mann-Whitney U test was used, between categorical variables the X2 test was applied. Results: There were no significant differences in length of hospital stay or time to self-sufficient stoma-care between the groups. Although not significant, patients with a rod ileostomy had a tendency towards more stoma-related complications as well as stoma-related reoperations. The number of patients reaching total self-sufficiency regarding stoma care was higher after rodless ileostomy. Conclusion: According to our data, rodless ileostomies seemto fare just as well as those with a supporting rod, with equal morbidity rates and more patients reaching self-sufficient stoma care. Therefore routine application of a rod for diverting loop ileostomy seems unnecessary