Meta - Analysis Of Single - Chamber Stoma And Double - Lumen Stoma

Objective: Evaluation of the risk of complications between end colostomy and loopcolostomy. Explore the respective merits of two kinds of enterstomy. Provide reference forclinical applicationsMethods: Retrieve PubMed, EMBASE, Springer, NCBI and other public retrievalsystems, literature searches as of2014-02-01, the time of the literature included in spanfrom1996to2010. Select the comparative study of comparative about end colostomy andloop colostomy to extract the data and evaluate the quality. We ues Software RevMan5.2toanalyze the incidence of the complications of enterstomy, as stoma necrosis, parastomalhernia, stoma prolapse, peristomal infection (dermatitis) and stoma retraction.Results:(1) The Meta-analysis show that the end colostomy have a lower risk atparastomal hernia (RR:0.66, CI:0.49-0.91, Z=2.57, P=0.01), stoma prolapse (RR:0.23,CI:0.05-0.99, Z=1.97, P=0.05) and stoma retraction (RR:0.21, CI:0.04-0.99, Z=1.97,P=0.05).(2) The loop colostomy is better at the group of stoma necrosis (RR:5.08,CI:1.94-13.22, Z=3.31, P=0.009).(3) For stoma prolapse (P=0.32) and peristomalinfection (dermatitis)(P=0.09), the study did not statistically significant.Conclusions: Each type of defuncyioning stoma has its advantages and disadvantages.The study endorses end colostomy stoma over loop colostomy. According to the data, thecomplications of end colostomy were less than those of loop colostomy. When the stomablood was protected as possible, we recommend the end colostomy.