Skip to content

Diverting Loop Ileostomy: With or Without Rod

A Prospective Multicenter Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial to Compare the Method of Protective Diverting Loop Ileostomy With or Without the Support of a Plastic Rod

Status
Terminated
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT00959738
Acronym
ROLLI
Enrollment
121
Registered
2009-08-17
Start date
2008-08-31
Completion date
2014-11-30
Last updated
2014-11-14

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Ileostomy, Rectal Neoplasms

Keywords

loop ileostomy, quality of life, morbidity, Rectal Neoplasms

Brief summary

Diverting ileostomies are created to protect a rectal anastomosis or in situations with a risk of intestinal perforation. Currently, the application of a rod to hinder slippage of the loop is an established technique to perform a diverting loop ileostomy. However, various rod-less techniques have been described and are performed with similar success. The aim of this study is to determine, whether a modification (without rod) of the current standard method of protective loop ileostomy formation (with rod) could improve ileostomy specific morbidity. Secondary endpoints include stoma care, determinants of quality of life and stoma function.

Detailed description

Background For rectal anastomoses within 6 cm of the anal verge, leakage rates are up to 15%. Here liberal use of protective stomas is widely accepted. Fecal diversion by loop ostomy may also be performed after extended adhesiolysis with serosal lesions and risk of intestinal perforation, in patients with obstructing rectal tumours requiring neoadjuvant radio-chemotherapy or in patients with complex anorectal injuries or fistulas. Generally, diverting loop ileostomies are secured at skin level by means of a supporting device in order to prevent retraction of the loop ileostomy into the abdomen. Nevertheless, due to the supporting rod, difficulties may occur in applying a stoma bag correctly and leakage of feces onto the skin may occur even with correct eversion of the afferent limb. Despite easier application of stoma bags and therefore reduced risk of skin irritation, none of these alternative techniques are established. In various non-randomized studies rodless loop ileostomies were described with an overall morbidity between 3 and 39%. However definition of morbidity varies significantly in these studies and randomised controlled trials are missing so far. Objective The aim of this study is to determine, whether a modification (without rod) of the current standard method of protective loop ileostomy formation (with rod) could improve ileostomy specific morbidity. Secondary endpoints include stoma care, determinants of quality of life and stoma function. Methods The study is designed as multi-institutional, randomized controlled, two-armed study. Patients scheduled for a protective loop ileostomy and meeting the eligibility criteria will be randomized to creation of a loop ileostomy with or without sustaining rod.

Interventions

PROCEDUREDiverting loop ileostomy with rod

Diverting loop ileostomy with rod

PROCEDUREdiverting loop ileostomy without rod

diverting loop ileostomy without rod

Sponsors

Insel Gruppe AG, University Hospital Bern
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
NON_RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* patients scheduled for planned protective loop ileostomy

Exclusion criteria

* patients with long-term use of corticosteroids (\> 15 mg prednisolone equivalent) * immunosuppressive agent rapamune

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
Severe stoma specific morbidity ratepostoperative during 2 weeks, 3 months postoperative

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Predictive factors for stomal complicationspostoperative during 2 weeks, 3 months postoperative
Rate of patients reaching self-sufficient stoma carepostoperative during 2 weeks
Time used by the stoma nurses for instructing and assisting patientspreoperative, 2 weeks and 3 months postoperativeMeasured in total hours from the intervention up to 3 months postoperatively
Quality of life (QoL) by a stoma quality of life scalepostoperative during 2 weeks, 3 months postoperative

Other

MeasureTime frame
Length of hospital stay, measured in days after interventionpostoperative during 2 weeks, 3 months postoperative
Start of stomal activity in hours after interventionpostoperative during 2 weeks, 3 months postoperative
Number of stoma bags and self-adhesive plates needed in the first month after the operationpostoperative during 2 weeks, 3 months postoperative
Change in eversion of the stoma nipple at postoperative days 2, 4, 6, 8, 14, 30, 60, 90postoperative days 2, 4, 6, 8, 14, 30, 60, 90

Countries

Switzerland

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Mar 10, 2026