Ostomy Surgery

Davis Bradley R. M.D.; Valente, Michael A. M.D.; Goldberg, Joel E. M.D.; Lightner, Amy L. M.D.; Feingold, Daniel L. M.D.; Paquette, Ian M. M.D.; Prepared on behalf of the Clinical Practice Guidelines Committee of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons

Diseases of the Colon & RectumDiseases of the Colon & Rectum. 65:p 1173-1190, October 2022.

doi: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000002498


Author Information

[1] Department of Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, North Carolina

[2] Department of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio

[3] Department of Surgery, Division of Colorectal Surgery, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts

[4] Division of Colorectal Surgery, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey

[5] Department of Surgery, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio

Earn Continuing Education (CME) credit online at cme.lww.com. This activity has been approved for AMA PRA Category 1 credit.

Funding/Support: None reported.

Financial Disclosure: None reported.

Correspondence: Ian M. Paquette, M.D., Department of Surgery, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine (Colon and Rectal), 2123 Auburn Ave #524, Cincinnati, OH 45219. E-mail: ian.m.paquette@gmail.com

The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons ensures high-quality patient care by advancing the science, prevention, and management of disorders and diseases of the colon, rectum, and anus. The Clinical Practice Guidelines Committee comprises society members who are chosen because they have expertise in the specialty of colon and rectal surgery. This committee was created to lead international efforts in defining quality care for conditions related to the colon, rectum, and anus and develop clinical practice guidelines based on the best available evidence. Although not proscriptive, these guidelines provide information on which decisions can be made and do not dictate a specific treatment. These guidelines are intended for the use of all practitioners, health care workers, and patients who desire information on the management of the conditions addressed by the topics covered. These guidelines should not be deemed inclusive of all proper methods of care nor exclusive of methods of care reasonably directed toward obtaining the same results. The judgment regarding the propriety of any specific procedure must be made by the physician considering all the circumstances of a patient.


Statistics regarding ostomy-related metrics remain elusive in the United States because of underreporting and coding limitations. The estimated number of ostomates in the United States is 750,000 to 1 million, with approximately 150,000 new ostomies created each year.[1] Stoma creation has a relatively high rate of associated morbidity, ranging from 20% to 80%; peristomal skin complications and parastomal hernia (PSH) are the most common associated morbidities.[2] A population-based study using the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative, which included 4250 patients, identified a 37% unadjusted surgical complication rate for elective cases involving an ostomy and 55% unadjusted surgical complication rate for emergency cases involving an ostomy.[1] In this study, risk-adjusted stoma-related morbidity rates varied significantly among hospitals, indicating a potential to improve outcomes in outlying institutions.

Beyond the typical short-term metrics captured in standard databases, the morbidity of ostomy surgery may also be measured in terms of the stoma-related negative effects on the quality of life and other long-term morbidities related to having an ostomy.[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8] Many patients have ostomies that are considered “problematic” and present with management problems like skin irritation and pouching difficulties that require prolonged and specialized care and result in increased utilization of health care resources and increased costs.[9],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15] The incidence and impact of short- and long-term stoma-related complications can be mitigated by perioperative education and marking, proper surgical technique, and attention to postoperative care pathways. The purpose of these clinical practice guidelines (CPG) is to guide surgeons and other health care providers to improve the quality of care and outcomes for patients undergoing ostomy surgery.


This CPG focuses on the surgical care of patients requiring an ostomy and addresses issues like choosing an ostomy type, technical aspects of ostomy creation and closure, prevention and management of ostomy-related complications, and perioperative care. The guideline does not address whether an ostomy should be created in a given clinical scenario because this evidence base was reviewed in other American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS) CPG related to specific diseases (eg, diverticulitis, rectal cancer, and ulcerative colitis).[16],[17],[18] Urostomies, continent ileostomies, stomas in the pediatric population, and a comprehensive review of nursing ostomy care (eg, skin care, use of different appliances, or other management systems) are beyond the scope of these guidelines.

These guidelines are based on the last ASCRS CPG for Ostomy Surgery published in 2015.[19] Because of the changes in the strength or quality of the evidence (Table 1), this updated CPG contains 2 new statements, 9 modified statements, and omission of 1 statement from the 2015 CPG. The remaining statements were not changed, but the literature review and supporting statements were updated. A systematic search of MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was performed from January 1, 2014, to December 1, 2021. Individual literature searches were conducted for each statement within the guidelines and were restricted to English language and adult patients (Fig. 1). Search strategies were based on the concepts of intestinal stomas, and the various relevant diagnostic procedures, surgical interventions, and care pathways related to these diagnoses using multiple subject headings, text words, and descriptors. The 4008 screened articles were evaluated for level of evidence, favoring randomized clinical trials, meta-analyses and systematic reviews, comparative studies, and large registry retrospective studies over single-institutional series, retrospective reviews, and observational studies. Additional references identified through embedded references and other resources as well as practice guidelines or consensus statements from relevant societies were also reviewed. A final list of 205 tabulated citations was evaluated for methodologic quality, the evidence base was evaluated, and a treatment guideline was formulated by the subcommittee for this guideline. The final grade of recommendation and level of evidence for each statement were determined using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system (Table 2).[20] When agreement was incomplete regarding the evidence base or treatment guideline, consensus from the committee chair, vice chair, and 2 assigned reviewers determined the outcome. Members of the ASCRS CPG Committee worked in joint production of these guidelines from inception to final publication. Recommendations formulated by the subcommittee were reviewed by the entire CPG Committee. Final recommendations were approved by the ASCRS Executive Council and peer-reviewed in Diseases of the Colon and Rectum. In general, each ASCRS CPG is updated every 5 years. No funding was received for preparing this guideline, and the authors have declared no competing interests related to this material. This guideline conforms to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation checklist.

Descriptive text is not available for this image
What is new in the 2022 ASCRS Ostomy Surgery Clinical Practice Guidelines

Descriptive text is not available for this image
The GRADE system—grading recommendations

Descriptive text is not available for this image
PRISMA literature search flow sheet. PRISMA = Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis.


1. Patients undergoing elective stoma creation should receive preoperative and postoperative ostomy education by a specialized provider such as a wound ostomy and continence nurse. Grade of recommendation: strong recommendation based on moderate-quality evidence, 1B

Stoma education in the perioperative setting has been shown to reduce length of hospital stay, patient anxiety, and the rate of peristomal complications while increasing patients’ self-reported quality of life.[21],[22],[23],[24],[25],[26],[27],[28] A trial that randomized 42 patients to an intensive preoperative educational program before ostomy surgery or postoperative teaching found that preoperative education decreased length of stay (8 versus 10 d; p = 0.02), decreased need for unplanned health care interventions postdischarge, decreased time to ostomy care proficiency (5.5 versus 9 d; p < 0.001), and resulted in significant cost savings.[21] Some of these findings were replicated in a more recent retrospective study that incorporated preoperative stoma education into an enhanced recovery care pathway, and, in this setting, preoperative education was still associated with a length of stay benefit (8 versus 9 d; p = 0.02).[29] A meta-analysis of 68 studies reported that lack of preoperative stoma site marking and wound ostomy nurse specialist consultation before stoma surgery was 1 of 6 risk factors associated with an increased likelihood of stoma-related complications; other risk factors included age more than 65 years, female sex, BMI more than 25 kg/m[2], diabetes mellitus, and abdominal malignancy as the underlying reason for ostomy surgery.[30] Another retrospective study evaluated the impact of a 2-hour preoperative stoma education class led by a certified Wound Ostomy and Continence Nurse (WOCN) for patients undergoing colorectal surgery in which a stoma was anticipated and found that educated patients (n = 124) experienced significantly fewer stoma complications than uneducated patients (n = 94). In this study, the study group had less leakage from the ostomy pouching system and less peristomal skin damage (20% versus 45%; p = 0.002) but had no improvement in the length of stay or in the 30-day readmission rate.[31]

A meta-analysis evaluating ostomy patients included 38 studies and reported that several modifiable factors were associated with improved quality of life, including having had preoperative stoma site marking and education (exercise, family support, maintenance of social networks, spirituality, and financial stability were also related factors).[32] In a multicenter prospective trial of 402 patients evaluating the impact of specialized ostomy nursing on the health-related quality of life of patients with new ostomies, patients treated in hospitals with specialized ostomy nurses were less concerned with appearance and were more comfortable with cleaning, changing, and disposing of ostomy appliances. In addition, study patients reported less fearfulness, improvements in sleep, and better overall health.[33]

2. Appropriate potential ostomy sites should be marked preoperatively by a trained provider, when possible. Grade of recommendation: strong recommendation based on moderate-quality evidence, 1B

Preoperative ostomy-site marking is associated with reduced postoperative stoma and peristomal complications and improved patient self-care and health care quality of life. In a systematic review of 10 studies including 2109 patients, preoperative stoma site marking was associated with reduced stoma and peristomal complications (both early and late) including prolapse, retraction, necrosis, skin complications (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.42–0.64), and hernias (OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.09–0.71).[34] Another systematic review of 20 studies found that preoperative stoma site marking was associated with a reduction in complication rates (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.36–0.62), improvement in self-care deficits (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.18–0.64), and increased health-related quality of life (standardized mean difference, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.70–1.40).[35]

Although site marking by a certified ostomy nurse is considered ideal, other trained providers may site stomas and counsel patients preoperatively, especially in emergency situations. When surgeons and surgical trainees were evaluated after choosing ostomy sites, investigators found that the sites chosen by surgeons were a median 2 cm away from the sites chosen by ostomy nurses. In this study, most “badly sited” ostomies were placed too low on the abdominal wall.[36] In this study, “seniority” had no impact on the results as trainees and attending surgeons had similar outcomes and colorectal surgeons sited locations more concordantly with the ostomy nurse specialists than general surgeons. A survey of surgical trainees showed that their training in ostomy-site selection was haphazard and infrequently involved an ostomy nurse specialist.[36]

In 2015, the ASCRS and the WOCNs Society published a Joint Position Statement of the value of preoperative stoma marking for patients undergoing fecal ostomy surgery and subsequently expanded these recommendations in 2021.[37],[38] Surgeons who choose ostomy sites should be familiar with the principles of proper ostomy site selection, including evaluating patients in multiple positions to identify adequate sites, avoiding folds and scars, considering the beltline, and siting the ostomy within the rectus abdominus muscle. Although preoperative site marking is strongly recommended, it is acknowledged that intraoperative circumstances may not allow for the optimal skin site to be used in all situations. Given the cumulative evidence and, in particular, the 2 large systematic reviews published in 2020 and 2021, the grade of this recommendation was changed from 1C in 2015 to 1B.

3. Patients benefit from follow-up for ostomy teaching, care, and support. Grade of recommendation: strong recommendation based on low-quality evidence, 1C

Patients living with an ostomy may experience negative effects on their quality of life, sexual difficulties, depression, dissatisfaction with their appearance, and challenges with self-image and travel.[4],[13],[15],[39],[40],[41],[42],[43],[44] Stoma creation can also result in feelings of embarrassment or shame; patient concern about disclosing their stoma status to others can lead to self-imposed limits and isolation.[45]

One randomized trial and several observational studies support the value of postdischarge ostomy nursing care, which can be provided in the home, outpatient, or telephone setting.[46],[47],[48],[49],[50] Follow-up stoma care is associated with increased ability of patients to care for themselves independently, fewer ostomy-related problems, improved ostomy adjustment, increased satisfaction with care, and improved quality of life.[46],[47],[51],[52]

Over time, patients with permanent ostomies may continue to have untreated ostomy-related complications and challenges.[12],[53],[54],[55],[56],[57] A multicenter noncomparative study of 743 long-term ostomy patients revealed that 61% of patients had objective evidence of peristomal skin problems, 28% experienced frequent leakage, and 87% used various accessories to facilitate pouching their ostomy; meanwhile, 55% had not seen a WOCN in more than 12 months. After 2 visits with a WOCN, participants experienced significant decreases in the frequency of pouch leakage (p < 0.001) and accessory use, improvement in skin condition, and a small improvement in the mean overall quality-of-life scores (Stoma-QOL: 56.8 versus 58.9; p < 0.001). The greatest change in the Stoma-QOL scores was observed in patients who were in the lowest QOL at baseline; their mean QOL scores rose from 43.8 at visit 1 to 50.1 at visit 2 (p < 0.001).[53] These data suggest that even long-term ostomy patients have difficulty with ostomy care and may benefit from expert counseling. Trained ostomy nurses provide an essential service to patients with ostomies beyond the immediate perioperative period.[58],[59]


4. When feasible, laparoscopic ostomy formation is preferred to ostomy formation via laparotomy. Grade of recommendation: strong recommendation based on low-quality evidence, 1C

There are no randomized trials comparing ostomy creation utilizing a conventional open surgical approach versus minimally invasive approach (MIS). However, multiple observational studies have documented safety and favorable short-term outcomes of laparoscopic ostomy creation compared with open ostomy creation. Reported advantages of a laparoscopic approach include reduced pain and narcotic requirements, shorter hospitalization, earlier return of bowel function, and fewer overall complications than open surgery.[60],[61],[62] A propensity-matched cohort of 358 patients who underwent elective open or laparoscopic colostomy formation reported decreased length of stay (5 versus 7 d; p < 0.05) and wound complications (13% versus 27%; p < 0.05) in the laparoscopic cohort.[61] A case-matched analysis of 196 patients (63 laparoscopic and 133 open) indicated that open surgery was associated with increased estimated blood loss (p = 0.01), longer hospital stay (p < 0.001), and higher postoperative ileus (p = 0.03) and readmission rates (p = 0.002).[62] Conversion to open surgery during stoma creation is uncommon, ranging from 0% to 16%, with more recent series reporting rates in the single digits.[60],[63]

Although data are limited, laparoscopically created ostomies may also be easier to reverse. In a retrospective study, patients who underwent loop ileostomy closure were evaluated based on whether the index procedure had been laparoscopic (n = 145) or open (n = 206).[64] Patients in the laparoscopic group had a significantly shorter mean operative time (60.9 versus 82.6 min; p < 0.001), shorter hospital stay (4.9 versus 5.8 d; p = 0.04), and a lower overall complication rate (14.5% versus 24%; p = 0.02).

5. When indicated, a loop ileostomy or loop colostomy is effective for fecal diversion. Grade of recommendation: strong recommendation based on moderate-quality evidence, 1B

Although proximal diversion of the fecal stream can be accomplished with an ileostomy or colostomy, loop stomas are often preferred for temporary fecal diversion because of their relative ease of closure. The choice of loop ileostomy (LI) versus loop colostomy (usually transverse loop colostomy [LC]) has been evaluated in 5 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and several observational studies in an effort to determine whether 1 approach is superior.[65],[66],[67],[68],[69],[70],[71] Several meta-analyses have also been performed but report conflicting results in large part because of the heterogeneity among studies.[72],[73],[74],[75],[76],[77],[78] Both LI and transverse LC effectively divert the fecal stream[79] and minimize the consequences of anastomotic dehiscence.[72]

The main difference in an LI versus LC is the rate of complications at the time of creation and subsequent closure. A meta-analysis that evaluated temporary diverting LI (n = 821) and LC (n = 630) found that an LI was associated with significantly lower incidence of stoma prolapse or retraction (OR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.11–0.60) and rate of PSH (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.30–0.88) but was associated with a significantly higher incidence of dehydration (OR, 2.67; 95% CI, 1.18–6.06) compared with an LC.[77] The incidence of stomal dermatitis, parastomal infection, stoma bleeding, and morbidity related to stoma reversal was the same in the 2 groups. Postoperative ileus was significantly more common following LI closure (OR, 2.23; 95% CI, 1.12–4.43), whereas LC reversal was significantly more likely to have a surgical site infection (SSI; OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.11–0.49) or incisional hernia (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.19–0.83).

Loop ileostomy patients may have a better quality of life relative to colostomy patients because of decreased odor, less need to adjust clothing secondary to prolapse, and greater ease of ostomy care.[65],[67],[80],[81] However, 1 small randomized trial did not show a difference in “social restriction” between the patients randomly assigned to a diverting colostomy (n = 39) versus ileostomy (n = 37).[82]

This recommendation was changed from the 2015 CPG in which a loop ileostomy was preferred to a loop colostomy. Given the aggregate of the literature, both an LI and an LC are effective means of diversion, and each approach has an associated risk-benefit profile; therefore, a recommendation strongly in favor of 1 operation over another cannot be made.

6. When possible, both ileostomies and colostomies should be fashioned to protrude above the skin surface. Grade of recommendation: strong recommendation based on low-quality evidence, 1C

Surgical technique influences the incidence of stoma-related morbidity, and stoma height, in particular, has been reported as a modifiable risk factor for complications.[9],[10],[83],[84] In a report of 192 stoma patients, 52 (27.1%) were identified with problematic stoma; significant risk factors for having a problematic stoma were having a colostomy, a short stoma height, a higher BMI, emergency surgery, and lack of preoperative site marking. In this study, patients with problematic stomas were associated with having a significantly longer hospital stay and requiring increased outpatient care.[10] Another retrospective study of 279 patients who underwent loop ileostomy formation found that surgical technique affected the incidence of parastomal dermatitis, mucocutaneous separation, stoma retraction, and stoma prolapse.[85] In this study, it was the height of the efferent stoma limb that was associated with stomal dermatitis and not the height of the proximal limb, whereas most other studies have demonstrated a near-linear inverse relationship between stoma protrusion height and the likelihood of having a problematic ostomy.[9],[57]

In general, ileostomies should protrude at least 2 cm over the skin surface, whereas colostomies should protrude at least 1 cm.[86] However, it is acknowledged that this degree of protrusion is not possible in all clinical circumstances. In patients with a thicker abdominal wall, a foreshortened mesentery, obesity, Crohn’s disease, or neuroendocrine or desmoid tumors, it may be difficult to mature an ostomy with an ideal stoma height. Nevertheless, surgeons should avoid creating ostomies flush with the skin when technically possible. Techniques that may be used to gain length for an ostomy include selective mesenteric vessel ligation, “end-loop” ostomies, and choosing an upper abdominal site in obese patients.

7. In nonobese patients, the routine use of a support rod at the time of loop ileostomy construction is not necessary. Grade of recommendation: strong recommendation based on high-quality evidence, 1A

In 2006, a small RCT compared ileostomies fashioned with a rigid bridge versus no bridge and demonstrated no significant difference in stoma retraction rates.[87] Since then, there have been 3 additional RCTs and 2 cohort studies evaluating the use of support rods for both loop ileostomies[88],[89],[90] and colostomies.[91],[92] A meta-analysis of these studies included 1131 patients with a loop stoma (569 patients had a support rod) and found no difference in stoma retraction rates (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.32–1.32); however, patients with a support rod had significantly higher rates of stoma necrosis, peristomal dermatitis, and mucocutaneous separation. Importantly, no studies have specifically evaluated the utility of support rods in obese patients, and the average BMI in the aforementioned studies ranged from 19.5 to 26.2 kg/m[2]. If a support rod is used, small observational studies have shown that flexible versions, such as a red rubber catheter, may permit easier fitting and changing of stoma appliances.[93],[94],[95] Considering the evidence currently available, this recommendation has been revised since the 2015 CPG, which focused on the physical properties of a support rod.

8. The routine use of prophylactic mesh to prevent parastomal hernia at the time of ostomy creation is not recommended. Grade of recommendation: weak recommendation based on high-quality evidence, 2A

The high rate of PSH has led many surgeons to place a mesh reinforcement at the time of stoma creation as a potential prophylaxis. Previous systematic reviews demonstrated a reduction in PSH rates with prophylactic mesh, and this approach was shown to be cost-effective.[96],[97],[98],[99],[100],[101],[102],[103],[104],[105] A meta-analysis published in 2017 of 7 RCTs including 432 patients found that implantation of mesh at the time of stoma creation reduced the incidence of clinically detected PSHs (10.8% versus 32.4%; p = 0.001) and radiologically detected PSHs (34.6% versus 55.3%; p = 0.01) without increasing the incidence stoma-related complications.[100] However, a 2019 study randomized 240 patients to a lightweight polypropylene sublay mesh versus no mesh at the time of permanent end colostomy creation and found no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups in the rates of clinically diagnosed PSH or PSH diagnosed by CT scan at 1-year follow-up.[106] In this study, there was no significant difference in perioperative complications between the groups. A 2020 trial randomized 200 patients to end colostomy creation with or without a synthetic lightweight monofilament mesh in the retromuscular space and found no significant difference in the rates of PSH (28% versus 31%) at 24 months.[107] Again, there was no difference in stoma-related complications in this study. A 2021 trial randomized 209 patients undergoing end colostomy creation to utilizing a cruciate incision (standard practice, n = 74), a circular fascial incision made with diathermy and targeting a diameter that was 50% of the width of the bowel (n = 72), or a prophylactic synthetic partially absorbable mesh in the sublay position (n = 63). In this study, there were no statistically significant differences between the groups regarding the PSH rate. However, increasing age and BMI were associated with a PSH.[108]

A meta-analysis of 7 studies evaluating the use of a mesh at the time of colostomy formation to prevent PSH[109] found no statistically significant benefit to mesh implantation at 1-year follow-up. In a meta-analysis of 11 studies, prophylactic mesh reduced the rate of both clinical (OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.12–0.61) and radiological (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.24–0.65) PSHs in patients with a minimum of 12-month follow-up. However, a sensitivity analysis that included only studies with a low risk of bias showed no significant benefit of prophylactic mesh in preventing PSH.[110]

A 2015 randomized trial of 70 patients who underwent end colostomy creation with or without an intraperitoneal dual-component onlay mesh showed that mesh did not significantly reduce the risk of radiologically detected PSH, but mesh repair was associated with a significantly lower risk of clinically detected PSH (14.3% versus 32.3%; p = 0.04).[111] The long-term follow-up of this trial, published in 2020, included 20 of the 35 patients in the original mesh group and 15 of the 35 patients in the original control group with a median follow-up of 65 months. The rates of radiologically detected PSH (45% versus 58.3%, p = 0.72) and clinically detectable PSH (20% versus 33.3%, p = 0.45) were the same in both groups. Interestingly, only 1 of 35 patients (2.7%) in the mesh group and 6 of 35 patients (17.1%) in the control group underwent a PSH repair during the long-term follow-up period (p = 0.03).[112] Considering the evidence currently available, which included 2 additional RCTs, this recommendation has been changed from the 2015 CPG. The heterogeneous nature of the interventions, materials, and surgical methods used was considered with respect to the weak recommendation.

9. Extraperitoneal tunneling of an end colostomy may decrease the risk of parastomal hernia. Grade of recommendation: weak recommendation based on moderate-quality evidence, 2B

Extraperitoneal tunneling of an end colostomy has been proposed as a technique to decrease the risk of PSH.[113],[114],[115],[116] In a meta-analysis of 10 studies (2 RCTs and 8 retrospective studies) including 347 patients with an extraperitoneal colostomy and 701 patients with a conventional colostomy, Kroese et al[117] reported that extraperitoneal tunneling was associated with significantly lower PSH rates (6.3% versus 17.8%; p < 0.001) and significantly lower stoma prolapse rates (1.1% versus 7.3%; p = 0.01). In this study, there was no difference in complication rates between the groups.[117] Given the evidence, this recommendation was upgraded from a 2C in the 2015 CPG to a 2B.

10. Managing patients with a new ileostomy with a perioperative clinical care pathway may decrease the risk of hospital readmission. Grade of recommendation: weak recommendation based on moderate-quality evidence, 2B

Complications after ileostomy creation are common, with morbidity rates reaching as high as 30%. In patients with a new ileostomy, dehydration is the most common cause of morbidity occurring in up to 40% of patients and often resulting in hospital readmission.[118],[119],[120],[121],[122] In an effort to mitigate the risks of dehydration and readmission, various perioperative care pathways have been implemented‚ including a variety of interventions like educating and empowering patients, standardizing discharge criteria, tracking fluid input and output after hospital discharge, engaging visiting nurse services, monitoring postoperative serum electrolytes, administering intravenous or oral hydration, and utilizing telemedicine visits and early follow-up after hospital discharge. Managing patients with a perioperative clinical care pathway has been shown to significantly decrease rates of readmission due to dehydration.[123],[124],[125],[126],[127],[128],[129],[130] A retrospective review comparing 232 patients treated with an ileostomy pathway and 161 patients treated without a pathway reported significantly decreased rates of 30-day readmission (25.9% versus 35.4%; p = 0.04) and of readmissions due to high output and/or dehydration (3.9% versus 15.5%; p < 0.001) in patients treated on a clinical pathway. The key components in this pathway included preoperative education with teaching materials, inhospital patient engagement with an emphasis on patient self-management, observing patients managing their own ostomy, and tracking postdischarge intake and output with assistance from a visiting nurse. An RCT of 79 patients who were treated with or without 1 L of isotonic oral solution daily for 40 days postoperatively found that the readmission rate was significantly higher in the control group (29% versus 10%; p = 0.001).[126]

Meanwhile, other studies have reported that ileostomy pathways do not decrease readmission rates.[122],[131],[132] In an RCT of 100 patients who either received an ileostomy education and monitoring program or received routine postoperative care, intervention patients were more likely to require outpatient intravenous fluids (25% versus 6%; p = 0.008), and there were no differences between the 2 groups in overall hospital readmissions (20.4% versus 19.6%; p = 1.0), readmissions for dehydration (8.2% versus 5.9%; p = 0.71), and patients developing acute renal failure (10.2% versus 3.9%; p = 0.26). Multivariable analysis found that weekend discharges to home were significantly associated with readmission (OR, 4.5; 95% CI, 1.2–16.9).[133] Considering the heterogeneous outcomes with respect to care pathways, this recommendation was downgraded from strong to weak based on moderate-quality evidence from the previous CPG.


11. Routine water-soluble contrast studies in the absence of a clinical suspicion of anastomotic dehiscence or stricture may not be necessary before closure of a protective ostomy. Grade of recommendation: Weak recommendation based on low-quality evidence, 2C

There are no randomized trials evaluating the use of water-soluble contrast enemas (WSCE) or any other preoperative evaluation of anastomotic integrity before reversal of a protective ostomy. Although the literature supports the sensitivity and positive predictive value of WSCE in detecting anastomotic leaks, several studies have questioned the utility of WSCE in routine clinical practice.[134],[135],[136],[137],[138],[139],[140],[141],[142],[143],[144],[145] Dimitriou et al[134] performed a WSCE on 339 patients after low pelvic anastomosis before ostomy reversal and identified 24 patients (7.1%) with an anastomotic leak. Of these patients, only 29% had an uncomplicated postoperative course from their index procedure, indicating that, in most cases, the surgeon could have a clinical suspicion of which patients were at highest risk of poorly healed anastomosis.[134] A systematic review of 1142 contrast enemas (CE) across 11 studies found that CE had high specificity (95.4; 95% CI, 92.0–97.4), negative predictive value (98.4; 95% CI, 97.4–99.1), moderate sensitivity (79.9; 95% CI, 63.9–89.9), and positive predictive value (64.6; 95% CI, 55.5–72.9) for the detection of clinically significant anastomotic complications including leaks and strictures. The authors also demonstrated a high degree of correlation between CE and clinical examination findings (96.7%). Methods used for clinical assessment in this study included digital rectal examination, proctoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and examination under anesthesia (EUA). Across the studies, 754 pairs of examinations were compared, and clinical assessment and CE were concordant in 731 patients (96.7%). Occult radiologic leaks were seen in 5.7% of CE.[137]

Another meta-analysis compared CE with endoscopic procedures and digital rectal examination in rectal cancer patients before closure of a diverting ostomy and included data from 2 prospective and 11 retrospective studies comprising 1903 patients. The analysis demonstrated equal or better results for sensitivity and specificity of both endoscopic procedures and digital rectal examination compared to contrast. No patient had an anastomotic leak that was described by a CE but not by digital rectal examination or an endoscopic procedure.[143] Similarly, in a retrospective study that compared 91 patients with low pelvic anastomoses who underwent flexible endoscopy (FE) before ileostomy closure versus 100 patients who underwent both FE and contrast evaluation (CE) before reversal, there were no significant differences in the detection of pelvic anastomotic leak (2.2% versus 1%), anastomotic stricture (1.1% versus 6%), or postoperative anastomotic complications (4.4% versus 9%) between the groups.[146]

Similar findings published in the setting of IPAA call into to question the routine use of preoperative pouchogram. A retrospective study of 52 pouch patients without immediate postoperative complications evaluated patients with a contrast study performed at a median of 14 weeks (range, 7–71 weeks) after IPAA and by an EUA on the day of the ileostomy closure. In this study, 1 asymptomatic patient (2%) had an anastomotic leak demonstrated on contrast study, which was subsequently confirmed at EUA‚ and 2 patients (3%) with a normal pouchogram, 1 symptomatic and 1 asymptomatic, subsequently had an anastomotic leak demonstrated at EUA.[147] Another study evaluated 61 patients following IPAA before ileostomy closure[148] with a pouchogram and pouchoscopy. Preoperatively, both pouchogram and pouchoscopy were negative for leakage in all 61 patients, and subsequently, the ileostomies were reversed. Fourteen months after ileostomy closure, a single patient presented with a pouch vaginal fistula. The negative predictive value of the double assessment was 98.4%. Their combination did not alter the diagnostic accuracy or have any effect in further management.

12. Early closure of protective ileostomies may be performed in select low-risk patients with a colorectal anastomosis without clinical evidence of anastomotic leak. Grade of recommendation: weak recommendation based on moderate-quality evidence, 2B

A temporary ileostomy is effective in reducing the severity of anastomotic complications in a variety of clinical conditions. Long-term stomas can manifest stoma-related complications such as prolapse, hernia, dehydration, and skin-related problems. Three adequately powered RCTs have evaluated the outcomes of early versus late ileostomy closure in patients with a low rectal anastomosis. It is important to recognize that the data are new and emerging regarding early closure (EC), and this recommendation could subsequently change pending new clinical data.

In 1 study, 186 patients were randomized to EC on day 8 or late closure (LC) on day 60 if there was no radiographic sign of anastomotic leak by postoperative day 7. A total of 39% of the EC group and 41% of the LC group received preoperative radiation. There were no deaths within 90 days, and overall morbidity rates were the same in the EC and LC groups (31% versus 38%; p = 0.254). Overall surgical complications (15% in both groups) and need for reoperation (8% in both groups) were similar, but wound complications were more frequent after EC (19% versus 5%; p = 0.007), whereas small-bowel obstruction (3% versus 16%; p = 0.002) and medical complications (5% versus 15%; p = 0.02) were more common with LC. Functional outcomes at 90 days were the same in both groups. Of note, 5 patients in the EC group developed enterocutaneous fistula versus 1 patient in the LC group, but no p value was reported, and all of these were managed conservatively.[149]

A more recent multicenter RCT evaluated EC (closure 8–13 days after index procedure, n = 55) versus LC (closure >12 weeks after index procedure, n = 57) in 112 patients with a low rectal anastomosis without clinical signs of postoperative complications and a normal CT scan or FE or both. The median time from index surgery to closure was 11 days in the EC group and 148 days in the LC group. The mean number of complications within 12 months of the index procedure was significantly lower in the EC group than that in the control group (p < 0.001).[150] A follow-up survey of these patients indicated no clinically significant differences in health-related quality-of-life questionnaire scores between the groups at 3, 6, or 12 months.[151] Using a sensitivity analysis and considering protocol-mandated examinations, the investigators demonstrated an overall difference in the mean cost per patient of $3608 (US dollars) in favor of EC (p = 0.02). In this analysis, the predominant cost factors were reoperations, readmissions, and endoscopic examinations.[152]

In the most recent randomized trial, Elsner et al[153] reported EC in patients who underwent an open low anterior resection with colorectal anastomosis. The study included 37 patients in the EC group (2 weeks) and 34 patients in the LC group (12 weeks), and all patients underwent preoperative CE studies and digital rectal examination. The study was closed early because of safety concerns, with 10 of 37 EC patients having failed stoma closure. Of note, 86% of the EC patients had a transverse coloplasty of the colonic conduit to improve their postoperative function, and the average distance of the anastomosis was 3 cm from the anal verge. All patients in the EC group who had an anastomotic dehiscence noted before ileostomy closure (4/37) were assigned to the EC group in this intention-to-treat analysis. Of the remaining 6 patients who failed EC, 3 had a leak of the colorectal anastomosis, 2 had a leak from the ileostomy closure, and 1 had a wound infection of the ostomy closure site.[153] In a meta-analysis of 6 studies comparing EC (defined as closure within 6 weeks, n = 269) versus LC (defined closure after 6 weeks, n = 259), the rates of major complications (5.2% versus 3.6%) and anastomotic leak (3.3% versus 3.5%) were similar in the 2 groups.[154] These results confirmed the findings of an earlier meta-analysis of 4 studies including 142 patients.[155]

A multicenter randomized trial of early (7–12 days) versus late (8 weeks or more) ileostomy closure following proctectomy with IPAA was closed early after interim analysis because of increased complications in the EC group. The median Comprehensive Complication Index was 14.8 in the EC group versus 0 in the LC group (p = 0.02).[156]

In total, the data on early protective ostomy closure are new and emerging. Early ileostomy closure appears to be contraindicated in high-risk cases such as coloanal anastomosis with transverse coloplasty or IPAA. This recommendation is subject to change as new clinical evidence becomes available.

13. Loop ileostomy closure can be performed using stapled or handsewn techniques. Grade of recommendation: strong recommendation based on high-quality evidence, 1A

Four RCTs compare stapled versus handsewn techniques for the closure of a loop ileostomy.[157],[158],[159],[160] In general, the results across the trials are the same with a trend toward a higher risk of postoperative bowel obstruction and longer operative time in the handsewn groups.[161] In 1 of the RCTs, the HASTA trial, which enrolled 337 patients across 27 centers, 10.3% of the stapled patients and 16.6% of handsewn patients developed postoperative bowel obstruction (p = 0.10), and 3% of stapled patients and 1.8% of handsewn patients developed anastomotic leak (p = 0.46).[157] In this trial, operative time was significantly shorter in the stapled group by 15 minutes (p < 0.001).[157] Several observational studies have suggested an association between stapled stoma reversal and shorter hospital length of stay; however, the possibility of selection bias in these studies must be considered.[162],[163],[164] A meta-analysis of 4917 patients across 15 studies (3406 handsewn and 1511 stapled stoma reversals) reported similar anastomotic leak rates in 2 groups of patients (2.9% versus 2.0%) and a higher rate of small-bowel obstruction in the handsewn group compared to the stapled group (7% versus 5.5%; p = 0.01).[165] The addition of the large meta-analysis led to an upgrade to a 1A recommendation. In patients undergoing ileostomy closure after an ileoanal anastomosis, some surgeons recommend a handsewn ileostomy closure, as this avoids the wider lumen and staple line caused by a stapled anastomosis in case a redo ileoanal anastomosis is ever required.

14. Ostomy-site skin approximation should be performed when feasible, and purse-string skin closure has advantages compared with other techniques. Grade of recommendation: strong recommendation based on high-quality evidence, 1A

Traditionally, ostomy closure wounds were left open and allowed to heal by secondary intention because of the risk of SSI, which has been reported to be as high as 41%.[166],[167],[168],[169],[170] Nonetheless, many surgeons close the skin, either partially or completely, to avoid the need for prolonged wound care. Closure techniques include primary closure, delayed primary closure, secondary closure, negative pressure wound therapy, closure incorporating a drain, and purse-string closure.

In a meta-analysis of 20 studies (6 RCT and 14 observational), including 1812 patients (826 purse-string closure versus 986 primary closure) undergoing ostomy reversal, rates of SSI were significantly lower in patients with a purse-string closure (3.1%) versus primary closure (20.2%; OR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.09–0.21). Length of hospital stay, hernia rates, and operative times were similar between the 2 groups.[170] Subgroup analysis, including only the 6 RCTs, confirmed these results. In another systematic review of 319 patients from 4 RCTs that compared purse-string closure versus primary closure,[171] there were no significant differences in the rates of incisional hernia, length of hospital stay, or operative times between the study groups. However, patients with a purse-string closure had higher satisfaction with their cosmetic outcomes (standard mean difference, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.13–1.27) and a significantly lower rate of SSI (risk difference, –0.25; 95% CI, −0.36 to −0.15).[172],[173],[174],[175] Given the aggregate of the literature, this recommendation was upgraded from a 1B recommendation in the 2015 CPG to a 1A recommendation.

15. Minimally invasive Hartmann reversal is a safe alternative to open reversal. Grade of recommendation: strong recommendation based on moderate-quality evidence, 1B

Although Hartmann reversal with a colorectal anastomosis[176] carries a high-risk profile, a variety of minimally invasive options have been described for this procedure‚ including robot-assisted closure and single and multiport laparoscopies.[177],[178],[179],[180] Although no randomized trials have compared open Hartmann reversal (OHR) versus laparoscopic Hartmann reversal (LHR), observational studies have documented the safety of a laparoscopic technique in this setting.[181],[182] An National Surgical Quality Improvement Program study evaluating patients who underwent either OHR or LHR between 2005 and 2014 demonstrated a 2.8% annual increase in the use of the laparoscopic approach with a concomitant decrease in open surgery from 100% to 74.2%.[183] In this study, laparoscopic colostomy reversal patients had fewer complications than those who had open surgery (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.50–0.63; p < 0.001) and shorter length of stay (mean change, −1.77 d; p < 0.001). A meta-analysis of 13,740 patients from 26 studies compared the MIS (n = 3170) with OHR (10,570 patients).[184] Although the overall conversion rate was 17%, postoperative morbidity was significantly lower in the LHR (18.5% versus 29.3%; OR, 0.43; p < 0.001). In addition, patients undergoing LHR had fewer anastomotic leaks (2.6% versus 4.6%; OR, 0.58; p < 0.001) and significantly shorter postoperative hospitalization (−3.72 mean days; p < 0.001). These results have been replicated in other reviews, which demonstrate that LHR has less short-term complications than OHR in terms of overall morbidity, wound infection, postoperative ileus, and length of hospital stay.[185] Although these data support the safety and utility of the laparoscopic approach in centers with surgeons experienced in this technique, it is important to note the potential for selection bias in these observational studies. Given the additional evidence available since the 2015 CPG (the large meta-analysis and the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program study), this recommendation was upgraded from a 1C to a 1B recommendation.


16. Parastomal hernia repair should typically utilize mesh reinforcement. Grade of recommendation: strong recommendation based on low-quality evidence, 1C

Although there has been a significant increase in the annual number of PSH repairs performed in the United States, from 4150 in 1998 to 7623 in 2011,[186] there are no RCTs comparing methods of PSH repair. The routine use of mesh in the setting of PSH repair is based on the multiple retrospective observational studies that demonstrate high rates of hernia recurrence (46%–78%) with primary suture repair.[187] A systematic review of 30 observational studies concluded that primary suture repair of a PSH was associated with a 69.4% risk of recurrent hernia.[187]

In a study by the American Hernias Society Quality Collaborative, 94% of PSH repairs used mesh, and the most common mesh used was a permanent synthetic mesh. Overall, only 21% of the repairs were performed using an MIS approach.[188] Another retrospective study of 235 PSH repairs across 9 Finnish hospitals reported that mesh was used in 90% of cases.[189] The safety of a permanent synthetic mesh was evaluated in a meta-analysis of 469 patients who underwent elective mesh repair of their PSH. In this study, the overall postoperative morbidity rate was 24.9%, and the most common complication was SSI, which was seen in 3.8% of patients (95% CI, 2.3–5.7). Mesh infection was observed in 1.7% of patients (95% CI, 0.7–3.1), and obstruction requiring reoperation occurred in 1.7% of patients as well (95% CI, 0.7–3.0).[190]

Biologic mesh has been evaluated in the setting of PSH repair, but no study has compared synthetic and biologic mesh in a randomized fashion. In a systematic review of 4 retrospective studies with a combined 57 PSH repair patients that utilized biologic mesh, 15.7% of patients developed recurrent hernias, and 26.2% developed wound-related complications.[191] A retrospective study evaluating 58 patients who underwent PSH repair with biologic mesh demonstrated a comparable recurrence rate of 18% at a median of 3.8 years of follow-up.[192] In general, biologic mesh should not be considered a superior alternative to synthetic mesh for elective PSH repair.[193]

There is no consensus as to when a stoma should be relocated, and there is no literature to guide this decision. Relocation typically occurs as a joint decision between the patient and the physician when it becomes clear that keeping the ostomy at its current location is problematic. For example, in setting a large hernia sac, the overlying skin may not be healthy enough or may have stretched to the point that adherence of the ostomy appliance may be problematic; thus, stoma relocation may be necessary. A patient’s body habitus may have changed over time with weight gain or loss, making relocation the preferred option. Whatever the reason, relocating a stoma is associated with the same high risk of hernia formation, and patients need to be counseled regarding the expected outcomes.[194],[195],[196]

17. Minimally invasive parastomal hernia repair may be performed in selected patients. Grade of recommendation: strong recommendation based on low-quality evidence, 1C

There are no RCTs comparing the MIS approach to open PSH repair. However, a number of observational studies have established the feasibility of laparoscopic mesh PSH repair procedures and reported similar recurrence rates between the 2 approaches.[190],[197],[198],[199],[200],[201] The choice of techniques is influenced by a number of factors. Open surgery is favored in patients with a larger hernia defect and in patients whose ostomies are taken down, rematured, or resited. A surgeon’s experience and increasing case volume favor an MIS approach.[188] The use of MIS techniques appears to be increasing over time, with 1 retrospective multicenter study showing a 75% utilization rate in elective PSH repairs.[189] In a retrospective study of 62 patients that compared open (n = 31) with laparoscopic (n = 31) approaches, hernia repairs with mesh, operative times (p < 0.001), and median length of stay were shorter after laparoscopy (3 versus 7 days; p < 0.001). In this study, overall wound complications, other complications, and need for reoperation or readmission were similar between the 2 groups. However, long-term follow-up of patients in the laparoscopic cohort showed a significantly longer time to hernia recurrence.[202]

The most common MIS techniques for PSH repair are the modified Sugarbaker technique and the keyhole technique, which can be done with either 1 or 2 pieces of mesh (sandwich technique). In Sugarbaker-type repairs, an intact sheet of mesh is placed as an underlay, with the stoma limb exiting from under the mesh lateral to the abdominal wall defect. The keyhole or slit mesh technique uses 1 or 2 pieces (sandwich—a piece of mesh above and below the fascia) of mesh with an aperture cut for the stoma limb to pass through because it enters the abdominal wall. In 1 prospective randomized study, the recurrence rate after the laparoscopic keyhole was 35.9%, Sugarbaker was 21.5%, and sandwich technique was 13.5%.[189] Issues related to recurrence have been demonstrated in several retrospective studies that show significantly higher rates of hernia recurrence after a keyhole technique (58%–72.7%) compared with a Sugarbaker technique (0%–15.4%).[203],[204] However, the average duration of follow-up for patients in the slit mesh group was greater than twice that of the Sugarbaker group.[203] A meta-analysis examining pooled data from 15 studies with a total of 469 patients demonstrated a PSH recurrence rate of 10.2% (95% CI, 3.9–19.0) after a laparoscopic Sugarbaker approach compared with a 27.9% recurrence (95% CI, 12.3–46.9) for the keyhole approach.[190] In a more recent retrospective study evaluating the long-term results of a keyhole technique (74 patients, using a 2-layer mesh of polypropylene and polytetrafluoroethylene with a self-cut slit) or the Sugarbaker technique (61 patients, using a coated polypropylene mesh) demonstrated 5 recurrences in the keyhole group (7%) and 6 recurrences (10%) in the Sugarbaker group. Late mesh-related morbidity occurred in 6 patients after keyhole (8%) and in 6 patients after Sugarbaker repair (10%).[205]


  1. Sheetz KH, Waits SA, Krell RW, et al. Complication rates of ostomy surgery are high and vary significantly between hospitals. Dis Colon Rectum. 2014;57(5):632-7.  [PMID:24819104]
  2. Malik T, Lee MJ, Harikrishnan AB. The incidence of stoma related morbidity - a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2018;100(7):501-508.  [PMID:30112948]
  3. Ayaz-Alkaya S. Overview of psychosocial problems in individuals with stoma: A review of literature. Int Wound J. 2019;16(1):243-249.  [PMID:30392194]
  4. Dossa F, Josse J, Acuna SA, et al. Health State Utility Values for Ileostomies and Colostomies: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Gastrointest Surg. 2018;22(5):894-905.  [PMID:29363020]
  5. Ferreira ED, Barbosa MH, Sonobe HM, et al. Self-esteem and health-related quality of life in ostomized patients. Rev Bras Enferm. 2017;70(2):271-278.  [PMID:28403309]
  6. Kement M, Gezen C, Aydin H, et al. A descriptive survey study to evaluate the relationship between socio-demographic factors and quality of life in patients with a permanent colostomy. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2014;60(10):18-23.  [PMID:25299814]
  7. Kristensen HØ, Thyø A, Christensen P. Systematic review of the impact of demographic and socioeconomic factors on quality of life in ostomized colorectal cancer survivors. Acta Oncol. 2019;58(5):566-572.  [PMID:30696323]
  8. Verweij NM, Bonhof CS, Schiphorst AHW, et al. Quality of life in elderly patients with an ostomy - a study from the population-based PROFILES registry. Colorectal Dis. 2018;20(4):O92-O102.  [PMID:29243393]
  9. Cottam J, Richards K, Hasted A, et al. Results of a nationwide prospective audit of stoma complications within 3 weeks of surgery. Colorectal Dis. 2007;9(9):834-8.  [PMID:17672873]
  10. Parmar KL, Zammit M, Smith A, et al. A prospective audit of early stoma complications in colorectal cancer treatment throughout the Greater Manchester and Cheshire colorectal cancer network. Colorectal Dis. 2011;13(8):935-8.  [PMID:20478001]
  11. Arumugam PJ, Bevan L, Macdonald L, et al. A prospective audit of stomas--analysis of risk factors and complications and their management. Colorectal Dis. 2003;5(1):49-52.  [PMID:12780927]
  12. Goldstine J, van Hees R, van de Vorst D, et al. Factors influencing health-related quality of life of those in the Netherlands living with an ostomy. Br J Nurs. 2019;28(22):S10-S17.  [PMID:31835935]
  13. Bulkley JE, McMullen CK, Grant M, et al. Ongoing ostomy self-care challenges of long-term rectal cancer survivors. Support Care Cancer. 2018;26(11):3933-3939.  [PMID:29845420]
  14. LeBlanc K, Heerschap C, Martins L, et al. The Financial Impact of Living in Canada With an Ostomy: A Cross-sectional Survey. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2019;46(6):505-512.  [PMID:31651800]
  15. Vonk-Klaassen SM, de Vocht HM, den Ouden ME, et al. Ostomy-related problems and their impact on quality of life of colorectal cancer ostomates: a systematic review. Qual Life Res. 2016;25(1):125-33.  [PMID:26123983]
  16. Hall J, Hardiman K, Lee S, et al. The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Treatment of Left-Sided Colonic Diverticulitis. Dis Colon Rectum. 2020;63(6):728-747.  [PMID:32384404]
  17. Holubar SD, Lightner AL, Poylin V, et al. The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Surgical Management of Ulcerative Colitis. Dis Colon Rectum. 2021;64(7):783-804.  [PMID:33853087]
  18. You YN, Hardiman KM, Bafford A, et al. The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Rectal Cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2020;63(9):1191-1222.  [PMID:33216491]
  19. Hendren S, Hammond K, Glasgow SC, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for ostomy surgery. Dis Colon Rectum. 2015;58(4):375-87.  [PMID:25751793]
  20. Guyatt G, Gutterman D, Baumann MH, et al. Grading strength of recommendations and quality of evidence in clinical guidelines: report from an american college of chest physicians task force. Chest. 2006;129(1):174-81.  [PMID:16424429]
  21. Chaudhri S, Brown L, Hassan I, et al. Preoperative intensive, community-based vs. traditional stoma education: a randomized, controlled trial. Dis Colon Rectum. 2005;48(3):504-9.  [PMID:15768181]
  22. Bass EM, Del Pino A, Tan A, et al. Does preoperative stoma marking and education by the enterostomal therapist affect outcome? Dis Colon Rectum. 1997;40(4):440-2.  [PMID:9106693]
  23. Colwell JC, Gray M. Does preoperative teaching and stoma site marking affect surgical outcomes in patients undergoing ostomy surgery? J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2007;34(5):492-6.  [PMID:17876209]
  24. Follick MJ, Smith TW, Turk DC. Psychosocial adjustment following ostomy. Health Psychol. 1984;3(6):505-17.  [PMID:6536500]
  25. Haugen V, Bliss DZ, Savik K. Perioperative factors that affect long-term adjustment to an incontinent ostomy. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2006;33(5):525-35.  [PMID:17133141]
  26. Pittman J, Rawl SM, Schmidt CM, et al. Demographic and clinical factors related to ostomy complications and quality of life in veterans with an ostomy. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2008;35(5):493-503.  [PMID:18794701]
  27. Forsmo HM, Pfeffer F, Rasdal A, et al. Pre- and postoperative stoma education and guidance within an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programme reduces length of hospital stay in colorectal surgery. Int J Surg. 2016;36(Pt A):121-126.  [PMID:27780772]
  28. Harris MS, Kelly K, Parise C. Does Preoperative Ostomy Education Decrease Anxiety in the New Ostomy Patient? A Quantitative Comparison Cohort Study. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2020;47(2):137-139.  [PMID:32150139]
  29. Hughes MJ, Cunningham W, Yalamarthi S. The effect of preoperative stoma training for patients undergoing colorectal surgery in an enhanced recovery programme. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2020;102(3):180-184.  [PMID:31841027]
  30. Zelga P, Kluska P, Zelga M, et al. Patient-Related Factors Associated With Stoma and Peristomal Complications Following Fecal Ostomy Surgery: A Scoping Review. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2021;48(5):415-430.  [PMID:34495932]
  31. Stokes AL, Tice S, Follett S, et al. Institution of a Preoperative Stoma Education Group Class Decreases Rate of Peristomal Complications in New Stoma Patients. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2017;44(4):363-367.  [PMID:28549049]
  32. Alenezi A, McGrath I, Kimpton A, et al. Quality of life among ostomy patients: A narrative literature review. J Clin Nurs. 2021;30(21-22):3111-3123.  [PMID:33982291]
  33. Coca C, Fernández de Larrinoa I, Serrano R, et al. The impact of specialty practice nursing care on health-related quality of life in persons with ostomies. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2015;42(3):257-63.  [PMID:25806600]
  34. Hsu MY, Lin JP, Hsu HH, et al. Preoperative Stoma Site Marking Decreases Stoma and Peristomal Complications: A Meta-analysis. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2020;47(3):249-256.  [PMID:32118803]
  35. Kim YM, Jang HJ, Lee YJ. The effectiveness of preoperative stoma site marking on patient outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Adv Nurs. 2021;77(11):4332-4346.  [PMID:34118170]
  36. Macdonald A, Chung D, Fell S, et al. An assessment of surgeons' abilites to site colostomies accurately. Surgeon. 2003;1(6):347-9.  [PMID:15570795]
  37. Salvadalena G, Hendren S, McKenna L, et al. WOCN Society and ASCRS Position Statement on Preoperative Stoma Site Marking for Patients Undergoing Colostomy or Ileostomy Surgery. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2015;42(3):249-52.  [PMID:25695929]
  38. WOCN Society, AUA, and ASCRS Position Statement on Preoperative Stoma Site Marking for Patients Undergoing Ostomy Surgery. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2021;48(6):533-536.  [PMID:34781309]
  39. Fingren J, Lindholm E, Petersén C, et al. A Prospective, Explorative Study to Assess Adjustment 1 Year After Ostomy Surgery Among Swedish Patients. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2018;64(6):12-22.  [PMID:30059344]
  40. Schiergens TS, Hoffmann V, Schobel TN, et al. Long-term Quality of Life of Patients With Permanent End Ileostomy: Results of a Nationwide Cross-Sectional Survey. Dis Colon Rectum. 2017;60(1):51-60.  [PMID:27926557]
  41. Zhang TL, Hu AL, Xu HL, et al. Patients after colostomy: relationship between quality of life and acceptance of disability and social support. Chin Med J (Engl). 2013;126(21):4124-31.  [PMID:24229685]
  42. Nichols TR. Quality of life in US residents with ostomies as assessed using the SF36v2. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2015;42(1):71-8.  [PMID:25549311]
  43. Indrebø KL, Natvig GK, Andersen JR. A Cross-sectional Study to Determine Whether Adjustment to an Ostomy Can Predict Health-related and/or Overall Quality of Life. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2016;62(10):50-59.  [PMID:27768580]
  44. Santos VL, Augusto FS, Gomboski G. Health-Related Quality of Life in Persons With Ostomies Managed in an Outpatient Care Setting. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2016;43(2):158-64.  [PMID:26808303]
  45. Danielsen AK, Soerensen EE, Burcharth K, et al. Learning to live with a permanent intestinal ostomy: impact on everyday life and educational needs. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2013;40(4):407-12.  [PMID:23820473]
  46. Zhang JE, Wong FK, You LM, et al. Effects of enterostomal nurse telephone follow-up on postoperative adjustment of discharged colostomy patients. Cancer Nurs. 2013;36(6):419-28.  [PMID:23051876]
  47. Karadağ A, Menteş BB, Uner A, et al. Impact of stomatherapy on quality of life in patients with permanent colostomies or ileostomies. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2003;18(3):234-8.  [PMID:12673489]
  48. Grant M, McCorkle R, Hornbrook MC, et al. Development of a chronic care ostomy self-management program. J Cancer Educ. 2013;28(1):70-8.  [PMID:23104143]
  49. Zheng MC, Zhang JE, Qin HY, et al. Telephone follow-up for patients returning home with colostomies: views and experiences of patients and enterostomal nurses. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2013;17(2):184-9.  [PMID:22748946]
  50. Wang QQ, Zhao J, Huo XR, et al. Effects of a home care mobile app on the outcomes of discharged patients with a stoma: A randomised controlled trial. J Clin Nurs. 2018;27(19-20):3592-3602.  [PMID:29775491]
  51. Addis G. The effect of home visits after discharge on patients who have had an ileostomy or a colostomy. WCET J. 2003;23:26–33.
  52. Lim SH, Chan SWC, Lai JH, et al. A qualitative evaluation of the STOMA psychosocial intervention programme for colorectal cancer patients with stoma. J Adv Nurs. 2019;75(1):108-118.  [PMID:30109721]
  53. Erwin-Toth P, Thompson SJ, Davis JS. Factors impacting the quality of life of people with an ostomy in North America: results from the Dialogue Study. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2012;39(4):417-22; quiz 423-4.  [PMID:22652937]
  54. Martins L, Tavernelli K, Sansom W, et al. Strategies to reduce treatment costs of peristomal skin complications. Br J Nurs. 2013;21(22):1312-5.  [PMID:23249795]
  55. Sun V, Grant M, McMullen CK, et al. Surviving colorectal cancer: long-term, persistent ostomy-specific concerns and adaptations. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2013;40(1):61-72.  [PMID:23222968]
  56. McMullen CK, Wasserman J, Altschuler A, et al. Untreated peristomal skin complications among long-term colorectal cancer survivors with ostomies. Clin J Oncol Nurs. 2011;15(6):644-50.  [PMID:22119975]
  57. Carlsson E, Fingren J, Hallén AM, et al. The Prevalence of Ostomy-related Complications 1 Year After Ostomy Surgery: A Prospective, Descriptive, Clinical Study. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2016;62(10):34-48.  [PMID:27768579]
  58. Gemmill R, Kravits K, Ortiz M, et al. What do surgical oncology staff nurses know about colorectal cancer ostomy care? J Contin Educ Nurs. 2011;42(2):81-8.  [PMID:21053790]
  59. Rubin G. Aspects of stoma care in general practice. J R Coll Gen Pract. 1986;36(289):369-70.  [PMID:3735227]
  60. Scheidbach H, Ptok H, Schubert D, et al. Palliative stoma creation: comparison of laparoscopic vs conventional procedures. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2009;394(2):371-4.  [PMID:17690903]
  61. Ivatury SJ, Bostock Rosenzweig IC, Holubar SD. Short-term Outcomes After Open and Laparoscopic Colostomy Creation. Dis Colon Rectum. 2016;59(6):543-50.  [PMID:27145312]
  62. Gorgun E, Gezen FC, Aytac E, et al. Laparoscopic versus open fecal diversion: does laparoscopy offer better outcomes in short term? Tech Coloproctol. 2015;19(5):293-300.  [PMID:25796388]
  63. Liu J, Bruch HP, Farke S, et al. Stoma formation for fecal diversion: a plea for the laparoscopic approach. Tech Coloproctol. 2005;9(1):9-14.  [PMID:15868492]
  64. Hiranyakas A, Rather A, da Silva G, et al. Loop ileostomy closure after laparoscopic versus open surgery: is there a difference? Surg Endosc. 2013;27(1):90-4.  [PMID:22752281]
  65. Williams NS, Nasmyth DG, Jones D, et al. De-functioning stomas: a prospective controlled trial comparing loop ileostomy with loop transverse colostomy. Br J Surg. 1986;73(7):566-70.  [PMID:3524742]
  66. Khoury GA, Lewis MC, Meleagros L, et al. Colostomy or ileostomy after colorectal anastomosis?: a randomised trial. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1987;69(1):5-7.  [PMID:3566123]
  67. Gooszen AW, Geelkerken RH, Hermans J, et al. Temporary decompression after colorectal surgery: randomized comparison of loop ileostomy and loop colostomy. Br J Surg. 1998;85(1):76-9.  [PMID:9462389]
  68. Edwards DP, Leppington-Clarke A, Sexton R, et al. Stoma-related complications are more frequent after transverse colostomy than loop ileostomy: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Br J Surg. 2001;88(3):360-3.  [PMID:11260099]
  69. Law WL, Chu KW, Choi HK. Randomized clinical trial comparing loop ileostomy and loop transverse colostomy for faecal diversion following total mesorectal excision. Br J Surg. 2002;89(6):704-8.  [PMID:12027979]
  70. Prassas D, Vossos V, Rehders A, et al. Loop ileostomy versus loop colostomy as temporary deviation after anterior resection for rectal cancer. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2020;405(8):1147-1153.  [PMID:32705343]
  71. Sun X, Han H, Qiu H, et al. Comparison of safety of loop ileostomy and loop transverse colostomy for low-lying rectal cancer patients undergoing anterior resection: A retrospective, single institute, propensity score-matched study. J BUON. 2019;24(1):123-129.  [PMID:30941960]
  72. Güenaga KF, Lustosa SA, Saad SS, Saconato H, Matos D. Ileostomy or colostomy for temporary decompression of colorectal anastomosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;2007:CD004647.
  73. Tilney HS, Sains PS, Lovegrove RE, et al. Comparison of outcomes following ileostomy versus colostomy for defunctioning colorectal anastomoses. World J Surg. 2007;31(5):1142-51.  [PMID:17354030]
  74. Rondelli F, Reboldi P, Rulli A, et al. Loop ileostomy versus loop colostomy for fecal diversion after colorectal or coloanal anastomosis: a meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2009;24(5):479-88.  [PMID:19219439]
  75. Gavriilidis P, Azoulay D, Taflampas P. Loop transverse colostomy versus loop ileostomy for defunctioning of colorectal anastomosis: a systematic review, updated conventional meta-analysis, and cumulative meta-analysis. Surg Today. 2019;49(2):108-117.  [PMID:30151626]
  76. Chudner A, Gachabayov M, Dyatlov A, et al. The influence of diverting loop ileostomy vs. colostomy on postoperative morbidity in restorative anterior resection for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2019;404(2):129-139.  [PMID:30747281]
  77. Du R, Zhou J, Tong G, et al. Postoperative morbidity and mortality after anterior resection with preventive diverting loop ileostomy versus loop colostomy for rectal cancer: A updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2021;47(7):1514-1525.  [PMID:33622575]
  78. Geng HZ, Nasier D, Liu B, et al. Meta-analysis of elective surgical complications related to defunctioning loop ileostomy compared with loop colostomy after low anterior resection for rectal carcinoma. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2015;97(7):494-501.  [PMID:26274752]
  79. Shah P, Mauro D, Friel C, et al. A Retrospective, Observational Study of the Adequacy of Elective Loop Stoma Diversion. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2016;62(5):30-40.  [PMID:27192718]
  80. Sakai Y, Nelson H, Larson D, et al. Temporary transverse colostomy vs loop ileostomy in diversion: a case-matched study. Arch Surg. 2001;136(3):338-42.  [PMID:11231858]
  81. Silva MA, Ratnayake G, Deen KI. Quality of life of stoma patients: temporary ileostomy versus colostomy. World J Surg. 2003;27(4):421-4.  [PMID:12658485]
  82. Gooszen AW, Geelkerken RH, Hermans J, et al. Quality of life with a temporary stoma: ileostomy vs. colostomy. Dis Colon Rectum. 2000;43(5):650-5.  [PMID:10826426]
  83. Robertson I, Leung E, Hughes D, et al. Prospective analysis of stoma-related complications. Colorectal Dis. 2005;7(3):279-85.  [PMID:15859968]
  84. Lindholm E, Persson E, Carlsson E, et al. Ostomy-related complications after emergent abdominal surgery: a 2-year follow-up study. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2013;40(6):603-10.  [PMID:24108321]
  85. Miyo M, Takemasa I, Ikeda M, et al. The influence of specific technical maneuvers utilized in the creation of diverting loop-ileostomies on stoma-related morbidity. Surg Today. 2017;47(8):940-950.  [PMID:28280983]
  86. Ayik C, Özden D, Cenan D. Ostomy Complications, Risk Factors, and Applied Nursing Care: A Retrospective, Descriptive Study. Wound Manag Prev. 2020;66(9):20-30.  [PMID:32903201]
  87. Speirs M, Leung E, Hughes D, et al. Ileostomy rod--is it a bridge too far? Colorectal Dis. 2006;8(6):484-7.  [PMID:16784467]
  88. Oh HK, Han EC, Song YS, et al. Is the Use of a Support Bridge Beneficial for Preventing Stomal Retraction After Loop Ileostomy? A Prospective Nonrandomized Study. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2015;42(4):368-73.  [PMID:26135822]
  89. Uchino M, Ikeuchi H, Bando T, et al. Is An Ostomy Rod Useful for Bridging the Retraction During the Creation of a Loop Ileostomy? A Randomized Control Trial. World J Surg. 2017;41(8):2128-2135.  [PMID:28299472]
  90. Zindel J, Gygax C, Studer P, et al. A sustaining rod increases necrosis of loop ileostomies: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2017;32(6):875-881.  [PMID:28417196]
  91. Franklyn J, Varghese G, Mittal R, et al. A prospective randomized controlled trial comparing early postoperative complications in patients undergoing loop colostomy with and without a stoma rod. Colorectal Dis. 2017;19(7):675-680.  [PMID:28067986]
  92. Whiteley I, Russell M, Nassar N, et al. Outcomes of support rod usage in loop stoma formation. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2016;31(6):1189-95.  [PMID:27023628]
  93. Lafreniere R, Ketcham AS. The Penrose drain: a safe, atraumatic colostomy bridge. Am J Surg. 1985;149(2):288-91.  [PMID:3882016]
  94. Scarpa M, Sadocchi L, Ruffolo C, et al. Rod in loop ileostomy: just an insignificant detail for ileostomy-related complications? Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2007;392(2):149-54.  [PMID:17131157]
  95. Harish K. The loop stoma bridge--a new technique. J Gastrointest Surg. 2008;12(5):958-61.  [PMID:18066633]
  96. Pianka F, Probst P, Keller AV, et al. Prophylactic mesh placement for the PREvention of paraSTOmal hernias: The PRESTO systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2017;12(2):e0171548.  [PMID:28182642]
  97. Cross AJ, Buchwald PL, Frizelle FA, et al. Meta-analysis of prophylactic mesh to prevent parastomal hernia. Br J Surg. 2017;104(3):179-186.  [PMID:28004850]
  98. López-Cano M, Brandsma HT, Bury K, et al. Prophylactic mesh to prevent parastomal hernia after end colostomy: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. Hernia. 2017;21(2):177-189.  [PMID:27995425]
  99. Patel SV, Zhang L, Chadi SA, et al. Prophylactic mesh to prevent parastomal hernia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. Tech Coloproctol. 2017;21(1):5-13.  [PMID:27942965]
  100. Chapman SJ, Wood B, Drake TM, et al. Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Prophylactic Mesh During Primary Stoma Formation to Prevent Parastomal Hernia. Dis Colon Rectum. 2017;60(1):107-115.  [PMID:27926564]
  101. Zhu J, Pu Y, Yang X, et al. Prophylactic Mesh Application during Colostomy to Prevent Parastomal Hernia: A Meta-Analysis. Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2016;2016:1694265.  [PMID:27818679]
  102. Cornille JB, Pathak S, Daniels IR, et al. Prophylactic mesh use during primary stoma formation to prevent parastomal hernia. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2017;99(1):2-11.  [PMID:27269439]
  103. Wang S, Wang W, Zhu B, et al. Efficacy of Prophylactic Mesh in End-Colostomy Construction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. World J Surg. 2016;40(10):2528-36.  [PMID:27216806]
  104. Sajid MS, Kalra L, Hutson K, et al. Parastomal hernia as a consequence of colorectal cancer resections can prophylactically be controlled by mesh insertion at the time of primary surgery: a literature based systematic review of published trials. Minerva Chir. 2012;67(4):289-96.  [PMID:23022753]
  105. Jones HG, Rees M, Aboumarzouk OM, et al. Prosthetic mesh placement for the prevention of parastomal herniation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;7:CD008905.  [PMID:30027652]
  106. Odensten C, Strigård K, Rutegård J, et al. Use of Prophylactic Mesh When Creating a Colostomy Does Not Prevent Parastomal Hernia: A Randomized Controlled Trial-STOMAMESH. Ann Surg. 2019;269(3):427-431.  [PMID:29064900]
  107. Prudhomme M, Rullier E, Lakkis Z, et al. End Colostomy With or Without Mesh to Prevent a Parastomal Hernia (GRECCAR 7): A Prospective, Randomized, Double Blinded, Multicentre Trial. Ann Surg. 2021;274(6):928-934.  [PMID:33201089]
  108. Correa Marinez A, Bock D, Erestam S, et al. Methods of Colostomy Construction: No Effect on Parastomal Hernia Rate: Results from Stoma-const-A Randomized Controlled Trial. Ann Surg. 2021;273(4):640-647.  [PMID:32209907]
  109. Prudhomme M, Fabbro-Peray P, Rullier E, et al. Meta-analysis and Systematic Review of the Use of a Prosthetic Mesh for Prevention of Parastomal Hernia. Ann Surg. 2021;274(1):20-28.  [PMID:33378298]
  110. Sahebally SM, Lim TZ, Azmir AA, et al. Prophylactic mesh placement at index permanent end colostomy creation to prevent parastomal hernia-an updated meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2021;36(9):2007-2016.  [PMID:33877438]
  111. Vierimaa M, Klintrup K, Biancari F, et al. Prospective, Randomized Study on the Use of a Prosthetic Mesh for Prevention of Parastomal Hernia of Permanent Colostomy. Dis Colon Rectum. 2015;58(10):943-9.  [PMID:26347966]
  112. Mäkäräinen-Uhlbäck EJ, Klintrup KHB, Vierimaa MT, et al. Prospective, Randomized Study on the Use of Prosthetic Mesh to Prevent a Parastomal Hernia in a Permanent Colostomy: Results of a Long-term Follow-up. Dis Colon Rectum. 2020;63(5):678-684.  [PMID:32032196]
  113. Hino H, Yamaguchi T, Kinugasa Y, et al. Relationship between stoma creation route for end colostomy and parastomal hernia development after laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc. 2017;31(4):1966-1973.  [PMID:27553802]
  114. Liao X, Li X, Cheng J, et al. Extraperitoneal colostomy after laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection using a cannula for tunnel creation through a trocar port. Surg Endosc. 2022;36(5):3178-3182.  [PMID:34160698]
  115. Akamoto S, Imura S, Fujiwara Y, et al. Extraperitoneal colostomy in robotic surgery for rectal cancer using a tip-up fenestrated grasper. Asian J Endosc Surg. 2021;14(3):636-639.  [PMID:33084208]
  116. Tulina IA, Kitsenko YE, Ubushiev MN, et al. Laparoscopic technique of modified extraperitoneal (retrotransversalis) end colostomy for abdominoperineal excision. Colorectal Dis. 2018;20(8):O235-O238.  [PMID:29779245]
  117. Kroese LF, de Smet GH, Jeekel J, et al. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Extraperitoneal Versus Transperitoneal Colostomy for Preventing Parastomal Hernia. Dis Colon Rectum. 2016;59(7):688-95.  [PMID:27270522]
  118. Messaris E, Sehgal R, Deiling S, et al. Dehydration is the most common indication for readmission after diverting ileostomy creation. Dis Colon Rectum. 2012;55(2):175-80.  [PMID:22228161]
  119. Hayden DM, Pinzon MC, Francescatti AB, et al. Hospital readmission for fluid and electrolyte abnormalities following ileostomy construction: preventable or unpredictable? J Gastrointest Surg. 2013;17(2):298-303.  [PMID:23192425]
  120. Fish DR, Mancuso CA, Garcia-Aguilar JE, et al. Readmission After Ileostomy Creation: Retrospective Review of a Common and Significant Event. Ann Surg. 2017;265(2):379-387.  [PMID:28059966]
  121. Justiniano CF, Temple LK, Swanger AA, et al. Readmissions With Dehydration After Ileostomy Creation: Rethinking Risk Factors. Dis Colon Rectum. 2018;61(11):1297-1305.  [PMID:30239391]
  122. Li W, Stocchi L, Cherla D, et al. Factors associated with hospital readmission following diverting ileostomy creation. Tech Coloproctol. 2017;21(8):641-648.  [PMID:28819783]
  123. Borsuk DJ, Studniarek A, Marecik SJ, et al. Protocol-Based Intravenous Fluid Hydration for Newly Created Ileostomies Decreases Readmissions Secondary to Dehydration. Am Surg. 2021;87(6):897-902.  [PMID:33280399]
  124. Hignett S, Parmar CD, Lewis W, et al. Ileostomy formation does not prolong hospital length of stay after open anterior resection when performed within an enhanced recovery programme. Colorectal Dis. 2011;13(10):1180-3.  [PMID:20653696]
  125. Iqbal A, Raza A, Huang E, et al. Cost Effectiveness of a Novel Attempt to Reduce Readmission after Ileostomy Creation. JSLS. 2017;21(1).  [PMID:28144122]
  126. Migdanis A, Koukoulis G, Mamaloudis I, et al. Administration of an Oral Hydration Solution Prevents Electrolyte and Fluid Disturbances and Reduces Readmissions in Patients With a Diverting Ileostomy After Colorectal Surgery: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial. Dis Colon Rectum. 2018;61(7):840-846.  [PMID:29771807]
  127. Nagle D, Pare T, Keenan E, et al. Ileostomy pathway virtually eliminates readmissions for dehydration in new ostomates. Dis Colon Rectum. 2012;55(12):1266-72.  [PMID:23135585]
  128. Shaffer VO, Owi T, Kumarusamy MA, et al. Decreasing Hospital Readmission in Ileostomy Patients: Results of Novel Pilot Program. J Am Coll Surg. 2017;224(4):425-430.  [PMID:28232058]
  129. van Loon YT, Poylin VY, Nagle D, et al. Effectiveness of the Ileostomy Pathway in Reducing Readmissions for Dehydration: Does It Stand the Test of Time? Dis Colon Rectum. 2020;63(8):1151-1155.  [PMID:32692076]
  130. Younis J, Salerno G, Fanto D, et al. Focused preoperative patient stoma education, prior to ileostomy formation after anterior resection, contributes to a reduction in delayed discharge within the enhanced recovery programme. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2012;27(1):43-7.  [PMID:21660418]
  131. Grahn SW, Lowry AC, Osborne MC, et al. System-Wide Improvement for Transitions After Ileostomy Surgery: Can Intensive Monitoring of Protocol Compliance Decrease Readmissions? A Randomized Trial. Dis Colon Rectum. 2019;62(3):363-370.  [PMID:30489324]
  132. Munshi E, Bengtsson E, Blomberg K, et al. Interventions to reduce dehydration related to defunctioning loop ileostomy after low anterior resection in rectal cancer: a prospective cohort study. ANZ J Surg. 2020;90(9):1627-1631.  [PMID:32840053]
  133. Chen SY, Stem M, Cerullo M, et al. Predicting the Risk of Readmission From Dehydration After Ileostomy Formation: The Dehydration Readmission After Ileostomy Prediction Score. Dis Colon Rectum. 2018;61(12):1410-1417.  [PMID:30303886]
  134. Dimitriou N, Panteleimonitis S, Dhillon A, et al. Is the routine use of a water-soluble contrast enema prior to closure of a loop ileostomy necessary? A review of a single institution experience. World J Surg Oncol. 2015;13:331.  [PMID:26637411]
  135. Goetz A, da Silva NPB, Moser C, et al. Clinical Value of Contrast Enema Prior to Ileostomy Closure. Rofo. 2017;189(9):855-863.  [PMID:28834982]
  136. Goh HL, Hawkins L, Kamarajah SK, et al. Is water-soluble contrast enema examination for integrity of rectal anastomosis necessary prior to ileostomy reversal? JGH Open. 2020;4(3):417-421.  [PMID:32514447]
  137. Habib K, Gupta A, White D, et al. Utility of contrast enema to assess anastomotic integrity and the natural history of radiological leaks after low rectal surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2015;30(8):1007-14.  [PMID:25922145]
  138. Horesh N, Hoffman A, Zager Y, et al. Value of Routine Colonic Evaluation Prior To Ileostomy Closure. Isr Med Assoc J. 2019;21(11):728-731.  [PMID:31713360]
  139. Kalady MF, Mantyh CR, Petrofski J, et al. Routine contrast imaging of low pelvic anastomosis prior to closure of defunctioning ileostomy: is it necessary? J Gastrointest Surg. 2008;12(7):1227-31.  [PMID:18368457]
  140. Karsten BJ, King JB, Kumar RR. Role of water-soluble enema before takedown of diverting ileostomy for low pelvic anastomosis. Am Surg. 2009;75(10):941-4.  [PMID:19886140]
  141. Khair G, Alhamarneh O, Avery J, et al. Routine use of gastrograffin enema prior to the reversal of a loop ileostomy. Dig Surg. 2007;24(5):338-41.  [PMID:17785976]
  142. Larsson A, Lindmark G, Syk I, et al. Water soluble contrast enema examination of the integrity of the rectal anastomosis prior to loop ileostomy reversal may be superfluous. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2015;30(3):381-4.  [PMID:25598042]
  143. Lindner S, Eitelbuss S, Hetjens S, et al. Less is more-the best test for anastomotic leaks in rectal cancer patients prior to ileostomy reversal. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2021;36(11):2387-2398.  [PMID:34251505]
  144. Saini P, Gupta P, Sharma A, et al. Should routine contrast study be a norm before stoma reversal? A retrospective study of patients with temporary ileostomy. Trop Doct. 2013;43(2):57-61.  [PMID:23765599]
  145. Shalabi A, Duek SD, Khoury W. Water-Soluble Enema Prior to Ileostomy Closure in Patients Undergoing Low Anterior Resection: Is It Necessary? J Gastrointest Surg. 2016;20(10):1732-7.  [PMID:27474098]
  146. Farzaneh CA, Jafari MD, Duong WQ, et al. Evaluation of Pelvic Anastomosis by Endoscopic and Contrast Studies Prior to Ileostomy Closure: Are Both Necessary? A Single Institution Review. Am Surg. 2020;86(10):1296-1301.  [PMID:33284668]
  147. Santorelli C, Hollingshead J, Clark SK. Clinical value of pouchogram prior to ileostomy closure after ileal pouch anal anastomosis. Tech Coloproctol. 2018;22(7):541-544.  [PMID:30062434]
  148. Exarchos G, Metaxa L, Gklavas A, et al. Are radiologic pouchogram and pouchoscopy useful before ileostomy closure in asymptomatic patients operated for ulcerative colitis? Eur Radiol. 2019;29(4):1754-1761.  [PMID:30324385]
  149. Alves A, Panis Y, Lelong B, et al. Randomized clinical trial of early versus delayed temporary stoma closure after proctectomy. Br J Surg. 2008;95(6):693-8.  [PMID:18446781]
  150. Danielsen AK, Park J, Jansen JE, et al. Early Closure of a Temporary Ileostomy in Patients With Rectal Cancer: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial. Ann Surg. 2017;265(2):284-290.  [PMID:27322187]
  151. Park J, Danielsen AK, Angenete E, et al. Quality of life in a randomized trial of early closure of temporary ileostomy after rectal resection for cancer (EASY trial). Br J Surg. 2018;105(3):244-251.  [PMID:29168881]
  152. Park J, Angenete E, Bock D, et al. Cost analysis in a randomized trial of early closure of a temporary ileostomy after rectal resection for cancer (EASY trial). Surg Endosc. 2020;34(1):69-76.  [PMID:30911920]
  153. Elsner AT, Brosi P, Walensi M, et al. Closure of Temporary Ileostomy 2 Versus 12 Weeks After Rectal Resection for Cancer: A Word of Caution From a Prospective, Randomized Controlled Multicenter Trial. Dis Colon Rectum. 2021;64(11):1398-1406.  [PMID:34343161]
  154. Clausen FB, Dohrn N, Hölmich ER, et al. Safety of early ileostomy closure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2021;36(2):203-212.  [PMID:32970178]
  155. Robertson JP, Puckett J, Vather R, et al. Early closure of temporary loop ileostomies: a systematic review. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2015;61(5):50-7.  [PMID:25965092]
  156. Vogel JD, Holubar SD, et al. High complication rate after early ileostomy closure: early termination of the short versus long interval to loop ileostomy reversal after pouch surgery (SLIRPS) randomized trial. Dis Colon Rectum. 2022. Forthcoming. 10.1097/DCR.0000000000002427
  157. Löffler T, Rossion I, Bruckner T, et al. HAnd Suture Versus STApling for Closure of Loop Ileostomy (HASTA Trial): results of a multicenter randomized trial (DRKS00000040). Ann Surg. 2012;256(5):828-35; discussion 835-6.  [PMID:23095628]
  158. Hasegawa H, Radley S, Morton DG, et al. Stapled versus sutured closure of loop ileostomy: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg. 2000;231(2):202-4.  [PMID:10674611]
  159. Hull TL, Kobe I, Fazio VW. Comparison of handsewn with stapled loop ileostomy closures. Dis Colon Rectum. 1996;39(10):1086-9.  [PMID:8831520]
  160. Shelygin YA, Chernyshov SV, Rybakov EG. Stapled ileostomy closure results in reduction of postoperative morbidity. Tech Coloproctol. 2010;14(1):19-23.  [PMID:20013018]
  161. Leung TT, MacLean AR, Buie WD, et al. Comparison of stapled versus handsewn loop ileostomy closure: a meta-analysis. J Gastrointest Surg. 2008;12(5):939-44.  [PMID:18071833]
  162. Gustavsson K, Gunnarsson U, Jestin P. Postoperative complications after closure of a diverting ileostoma--differences according to closure technique. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2012;27(1):55-8.  [PMID:21845418]
  163. Balik E, Eren T, Bugra D, et al. Revisiting stapled and handsewn loop ileostomy closures: a large retrospective series. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2011;66(11):1935-41.  [PMID:22086525]
  164. Luglio G, Pendlimari R, Holubar SD, et al. Loop ileostomy reversal after colon and rectal surgery: a single institutional 5-year experience in 944 patients. Arch Surg. 2011;146(10):1191-6.  [PMID:22006879]
  165. Madani R, Day N, Kumar L, et al. Hand-Sewn versus Stapled Closure of Loop Ileostomy: A Meta-Analysis. Dig Surg. 2019;36(3):183-194.  [PMID:29514142]
  166. Camacho-Mauries D, Rodriguez-Díaz JL, Salgado-Nesme N, et al. Randomized clinical trial of intestinal ostomy takedown comparing pursestring wound closure vs conventional closure to eliminate the risk of wound infection. Dis Colon Rectum. 2013;56(2):205-11.  [PMID:23303149]
  167. Milanchi S, Nasseri Y, Kidner T, et al. Wound infection after ileostomy closure can be eliminated by circumferential subcuticular wound approximation. Dis Colon Rectum. 2009;52(3):469-74.  [PMID:19333048]
  168. Reid K, Pockney P, Pollitt T, et al. Randomized clinical trial of short-term outcomes following purse-string versus conventional closure of ileostomy wounds. Br J Surg. 2010;97(10):1511-7.  [PMID:20575111]
  169. Sutton CD, Williams N, Marshall LJ, et al. A technique for wound closure that minimizes sepsis after stoma closure. ANZ J Surg. 2002;72(10):766-7.  [PMID:12534395]
  170. Gachabayov M, Lee H, Chudner A, et al. Purse-string vs. linear skin closure at loop ileostomy reversal: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Tech Coloproctol. 2019;23(3):207-220.  [PMID:30809775]
  171. Hsieh MC, Kuo LT, Chi CC, et al. Pursestring Closure versus Conventional Primary Closure Following Stoma Reversal to Reduce Surgical Site Infection Rate: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Dis Colon Rectum. 2015;58(8):808-15.  [PMID:26163961]
  172. Rausa E, Kelly ME, Sgroi G, et al. Quality of life following ostomy reversal with purse-string vs linear skin closure: a systematic review. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2019;34(2):209-216.  [PMID:30547183]
  173. Lopez MP, Melendres MF, Maglangit SA, et al. A randomized controlled clinical trial comparing the outcomes of circumferential subcuticular wound approximation (CSWA) with conventional wound closure after stoma reversal. Tech Coloproctol. 2015;19(8):461-8.  [PMID:26045008]
  174. O'Leary DP, Carter M, Wijewardene D, et al. The effect of purse-string approximation versus linear approximation of ileostomy reversal wounds on morbidity rates and patient satisfaction: the 'STOMA' trial. Tech Coloproctol. 2017;21(11):863-868.  [PMID:29149428]
  175. Yoon SI, Bae SM, Namgung H, et al. Clinical trial on the incidence of wound infection and patient satisfaction after stoma closure: comparison of two skin closure techniques. Ann Coloproctol. 2015;31(1):29-33.  [PMID:25745624]
  176. Richards CH, Roxburgh CS, Scottish Surgical Research Group (SSRG). Surgical outcome in patients undergoing reversal of Hartmann's procedures: a multicentre study. Colorectal Dis. 2015;17(3):242-9.  [PMID:25331720]
  177. van Loon YT, Clermonts SHEM, Wasowicz DK, et al. Reversal of left-sided colostomy utilizing single-port laparoscopy: single-center consolidation of a new technique. Surg Endosc. 2020;34(1):332-338.  [PMID:30927125]
  178. Mutlu L, Kim S, Altwerger G, et al. Robotic Colostomy Takedown in a Patient with Extensive Ventral Hernias and Adhesive Disease. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020;27(6):1256-1257.  [PMID:31838277]
  179. Thambi P, Borowski DW, Sathasivam R, et al. Single-incision laparoscopic reversal of Hartmann's operation through the stoma site: comparative outcomes with conventional laparoscopic and open surgery. Colorectal Dis. 2019;21(7):833-840.  [PMID:30897258]
  180. Giuseppe R, Nicolò Id F, Serafino M, et al. Laparoscopic reversal of Hartmann's procedure: A single-center experience. Asian J Endosc Surg. 2019;12(4):486-491.  [PMID:30549236]
  181. Horesh N, Lessing Y, Rudnicki Y, et al. Comparison between laparoscopic and open Hartmann's reversal: results of a decade-long multicenter retrospective study. Surg Endosc. 2018;32(12):4780-4787.  [PMID:29766303]
  182. Lucchetta A, De Manzini N. Laparoscopic reversal of Hartmann procedure: is it safe and feasible? Updates Surg. 2016;68(1):105-10.  [PMID:27075662]
  183. Pei KY, Davis KA, Zhang Y. Assessing trends in laparoscopic colostomy reversal and evaluating outcomes when compared to open procedures. Surg Endosc. 2018;32(2):695-701.  [PMID:28726139]
  184. Guerra F, Coletta D, Del Basso C, et al. Conventional Versus Minimally Invasive Hartmann Takedown: A Meta-analysis of the Literature. World J Surg. 2019;43(7):1820-1828.  [PMID:30824963]
  185. Celentano V, Giglio MC, Bucci L. Laparoscopic versus open Hartmann's reversal: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2015;30(12):1603-15.  [PMID:26189028]
  186. Gavigan T, Rozario N, Matthews B, et al. Trends in parastomal hernia repair in the United States: a 14-y review. J Surg Res. 2017;218:78-85.  [PMID:28985880]
  187. Hansson BM, Slater NJ, van der Velden AS, et al. Surgical techniques for parastomal hernia repair: a systematic review of the literature. Ann Surg. 2012;255(4):685-95.  [PMID:22418006]
  188. Gavigan T, Stewart T, Matthews B, et al. Patients Undergoing Parastomal Hernia Repair Using the Americas Hernia Society Quality Collaborative: A Prospective Cohort Study. J Am Coll Surg. 2018;227(4):393-403.e1.  [PMID:30081081]
  189. Mäkäräinen-Uhlbäck E, Vironen J, Falenius V, et al. Parastomal Hernia: A Retrospective Nationwide Cohort Study Comparing Different Techniques with Long-Term Follow-Up. World J Surg. 2021;45(6):1742-1749.  [PMID:33560501]
  190. DeAsis FJ, Lapin B, Gitelis ME, et al. Current state of laparoscopic parastomal hernia repair: A meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol. 2015;21(28):8670-7.  [PMID:26229409]
  191. Slater NJ, Hansson BM, Buyne OR, et al. Repair of parastomal hernias with biologic grafts: a systematic review. J Gastrointest Surg. 2011;15(7):1252-8.  [PMID:21360207]
  192. Hufford T, Tremblay JF, Mustafa Sheikh MT, et al. Local parastomal hernia repair with biological mesh is safe and effective. Am J Surg. 2018;215(1):88-90.  [PMID:28882360]
  193. Köckerling F, Alam NN, Antoniou SA, et al. What is the evidence for the use of biologic or biosynthetic meshes in abdominal wall reconstruction? Hernia. 2018;22(2):249-269.  [PMID:29388080]
  194. Rubin MS, Schoetz DJ, Matthews JB. Parastomal hernia. Is stoma relocation superior to fascial repair? Arch Surg. 1994;129(4):413-8; discussion 418-9.  [PMID:8154967]
  195. Rieger N, Moore J, Hewett P, et al. Parastomal hernia repair. Colorectal Dis. 2004;6(3):203-5.  [PMID:15109388]
  196. Riansuwan W, Hull TL, Millan MM, et al. Surgery of recurrent parastomal hernia: direct repair or relocation? Colorectal Dis. 2010;12(7):681-6.  [PMID:19486097]
  197. Hansson BM, de Hingh IH, Bleichrodt RP. Laparoscopic parastomal hernia repair is feasible and safe: early results of a prospective clinical study including 55 consecutive patients. Surg Endosc. 2007;21(6):989-93.  [PMID:17353985]
  198. Hansson BM, Bleichrodt RP, de Hingh IH. Laparoscopic parastomal hernia repair using a keyhole technique results in a high recurrence rate. Surg Endosc. 2009;23(7):1456-9.  [PMID:19118435]
  199. Hansson BM, Morales-Conde S, Mussack T, et al. The laparoscopic modified Sugarbaker technique is safe and has a low recurrence rate: a multicenter cohort study. Surg Endosc. 2013;27(2):494-500.  [PMID:23052490]
  200. Berger D, Bientzle M. Polyvinylidene fluoride: a suitable mesh material for laparoscopic incisional and parastomal hernia repair! A prospective, observational study with 344 patients. Hernia. 2009;13(2):167-72.  [PMID:18853228]
  201. Helgstrand F, Rosenberg J, Kehlet H, et al. Risk of morbidity, mortality, and recurrence after parastomal hernia repair: a nationwide study. Dis Colon Rectum. 2013;56(11):1265-72.  [PMID:24105002]
  202. Keller P, Totten CF, Plymale MA, et al. Laparoscopic parastomal hernia repair delays recurrence relative to open repair. Surg Endosc. 2021;35(1):415-422.  [PMID:32030548]
  203. Muysoms EE, Hauters PJ, Van Nieuwenhove Y, et al. Laparoscopic repair of parastomal hernias: a multi-centre retrospective review and shift in technique. Acta Chir Belg. 2008;108(4):400-4.  [PMID:18807589]
  204. Asif A, Ruiz M, Yetasook A, et al. Laparoscopic modified Sugarbaker technique results in superior recurrence rate. Surg Endosc. 2012;26(12):3430-4.  [PMID:22648122]
  205. Gameza VA, Bell Lybecker M, Wara P. Laparoscopic Keyhole Versus Sugarbaker Repair in Parastomal Hernia: A Long-Term Case-Controlled Prospective Study of Consecutive Patients. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2020;30(7):783-789.  [PMID:32216697]
Last updated: January 27, 2023