A COMPARATIVE STUDY BETWEEN THE OUTCOME OF PRIMARY REPAIR VERSUS LOOP ILEOSTOMY IN ILEAL PERFORATION
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.71000/335gzc63Keywords:
Anastomosis, Ileal Perforation, Ileostomy, Morbidity, Postoperative Complications, Surgical Site Infection, Typhoid FeverAbstract
Background: Ileal perforation is a critical surgical emergency associated with high morbidity and mortality if treatment is delayed. Among the management strategies, primary repair and loop ileostomy are the most commonly practiced procedures, yet the choice between them remains debated. Each approach carries distinct risks and benefits, and outcomes may vary depending on patient selection, intraoperative findings, and healthcare resources. Establishing evidence-based guidance is essential to optimize treatment strategies and improve survival in affected patients.
Objective: To compare the demographic, clinical, and postoperative outcomes of primary repair versus loop ileostomy in patients with typhoid-associated ileal perforation.
Methods: This randomized controlled trial was conducted over six months in a tertiary care hospital and included 70 patients aged 13–60 years presenting with ileal perforation within 48 hours of symptom onset. Patients were randomized into two groups: Group A underwent primary repair (n = 35) and Group B underwent loop ileostomy (n = 35). Demographic data, clinical presentation, and postoperative complications were recorded. Patients were followed for one month. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 26, with chi-square and independent t-tests applied. A p-value ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results: Baseline characteristics such as mean age (31.8 ± 10.5 vs. 32.6 ± 11.2 years, p = 0.678), gender distribution (male: 68% vs. 66%, p = 0.831), and BMI (22.4 ± 2.7 vs. 22.9 ± 3.1 kg/m², p = 0.451) were comparable between the groups. Postoperative outcomes, however, differed significantly. Surgical site infection was higher in the loop ileostomy group (50%, n = 18) compared with the primary repair group (20%, n = 7; p = 0.001). Mean hospital stay was significantly prolonged in loop ileostomy patients (12.4 ± 3.3 days) versus primary repair (7.6 ± 2.1 days; p < 0.001). Electrolyte imbalance occurred in 36% (n = 13) of loop ileostomy patients compared to 8% (n = 3) of primary repair patients (p = 0.001). Mortality was slightly higher in the ileostomy group (6%, n = 2) compared with primary repair (2%, n = 1), though not statistically significant (p = 0.307).
Conclusion: Primary repair demonstrated superior short-term outcomes compared with loop ileostomy in patients with typhoid-associated ileal perforation, showing lower complication rates, reduced hospital stay, and fewer electrolyte imbalances. Loop ileostomy should remain reserved for unstable patients or those with extensive contamination. Careful patient selection and adherence to standardized surgical protocols can improve prognosis in this life-threatening condition.
References
Hameed T, Kumar A, Sahni S, Bhatia R, Vidhyarthy AK. Emerging Spectrum of Perforation Peritonitis in Developing World. Front Surg. 2020;7(50).
Qazi SH, Yousafzai MT, Saddal NS, Dehraj IF, Thobani RS, Akhtar A, et al. Burden of Ileal Perforations Among Surgical Patients Admitted in Tertiary Care Hospitals of Three Asian countries: Surveillance of Enteric Fever in Asia Project (SEAP), September 2016–September 2019. Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Nov 1;71(Supplement_3):S232–8.
Fatima M, Kumar S, Hussain M, Memon NM, Vighio A, Syed MA, et al. Morbidity and Mortality Associated with Typhoid Fever Among Hospitalized Patients in Hyderabad District, Pakistan, 2017-2018: Retrospective Record Review. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2021 May 17;7(5):e27268.
Ahmed M, Owais MA, Rehman A, Abbasi MA, Shah SM, Langah IA. Typhoid Ileal Perforation and Its Prognostic Factors. HIV Nursing. 2023;23(3):712–5.
Mengal MA, Muhammad D, Bazai AK, Mengal MA, Mengal H. Comparison of Outcome the Primary Repair Versus Ileostomy in Typhoid Ileal Perforation Patients. J Liaq Uni Med Health Sci. 2020;19(03):171-6.
Gul S, Parveen S, Iqbal M, Ahmed T, Khan I, Nawaz A. Typhoid Ileal Perforation: Comparative Study of Ileostomy Versus Primary Repair and associated Morbidity and Mortality. Pak Armed Forces Med J. 2023;73(2):374.
Chappell B. ABDOMINAL PAIN, NAUSEA, VOMITING. Urgent Care Medicine Secrets E-Book: Urgent Care Medicine Secrets E-Book. 2024 Jan 29:54.
Bhattacharya R, Hwang JH, Ko C. The Patient with Nausea and Vomiting. Yamada’s Handbook of Gastroenterology. 2020;47.
Al Bothaigi SS, Al Fakih SA, Noman TA, Alharazi T, Atef TA. Safety of primary repair in penetrating colorectal injuries during current Yemeni War. Asian Journal of Research in Surgery. 2022;7(1):8-22.
Lapa DA, Chmait RH, Gielchinsky Y, Yamamoto M, Persico N, Santorum M, Gil MM, Trigo L, Quintero RA, Nicolaides KH. Percutaneous fetoscopic spina bifida repair: effect on ambulation and need for postnatal cerebrospinal fluid diversion and bladder catheterization. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2021 Oct;58(4):582-9.
Borejsza-Wysocki M, Szmyt K, Jeske P, Bobkiewicz A, Ledwosiński W, Banasiewicz T, Krokowicz Ł. Analysis of risk factors for surgical site infection and other postoperative complications in patients following loop ileostomy reversal. Polish Journal of Surgery. 2024 Apr 3;96(4):44-9.
Ourô S, Ferreira MP, Albergaria D, Maio R. Loop ileostomy in rectal cancer surgery: factors predicting reversal and stoma related morbidity. Langenbeck's archives of surgery. 2021 May;406:843-53.
Zhu Y, Chen J, Lin S, Xu D. Risk factor for the development of surgical site infection following ileostomy reversal: a single-center report. Updates in Surgery. 2022 Oct;74(5):1675-82.
Turner GA, Clifford KA, Holloway R, Woodfield JC, Thompson‐Fawcett M. The impact of prolonged delay to loop ileostomy closure on postoperative morbidity and hospital stay: A retrospective cohort study. Colorectal Disease. 2022 Jul;24(7):854-61.
Babakhanlou R, Larkin K, Hita AG, Stroh J, Yeung SC. Stoma-related complications and emergencies. International Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2022 Dec;15(1):17.
Nightingale JM. How to manage a high-output stoma. Frontline gastroenterology. 2022 Mar 1;13(2):140-51.
Climent M, Frago R, Cornellà N, Serrano M, Kreisler E, Biondo S. Prognostic factors for complications after loop ileostomy reversal. Techniques in Coloproctology. 2022 Jan;26:45-52.
Miller AS, Boyce K, Box B, Clarke MD, Duff SE, Foley NM, Guy RJ, Massey LH, Ramsay G, Slade DA, Stephenson JA. The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland consensus guidelines in emergency colorectal surgery. Colorectal Disease. 2021 Feb;23(2):476-547.
Goutam SS, Shukla R, Singh RP, Nutan K. Identify Risk Factors for Postoperative Complications After Loop Ileostomy Closure. European Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine. 2024 Sep 24;14:209-15.
Bachour SP, Khan MZ, Shah RS, Joseph A, Syed H, Ali AH, et al. Anastomotic Configuration and Temporary Diverting Ileostomy Do Not Increase Risk of Anastomotic Stricture in Postoperative Crohn's Disease. Am J Gastroenterol. 2023;118(12):2212-9.
Shukla P, Somashekar U, Thakur DS, Kothari R, Sharma D. Feasibility and efficacy of ghost ileostomy in typhoid ileal perforations: A prospective observational study. Trop Doct. 2021;51(4):497-500.
Keramati MR, Meshkati Yazd SM, Shahriarirad R, Ahmadi Tafti SM, Kazemeini A, Behboudi B, et al. Hand-sewn direct repair versus resection and hand-sewn anastomosis techniques for the reversal of diverting loop ileostomy after lower anterior rectal resection surgery: A randomized clinical trial. J Surg Oncol. 2023;127(5):798-805.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Nadar Hussain, Muhammad Hamza Ali, Aroosa Rubab, Nawaid Farooque Khan, Muhammad Tariq Bashir, Amn Raana (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
