Reply to Bugiantella Et Al.

X Zhou,W Chen,J Xu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.12801

IF: 3.4

2014-01-01

Colorectal Disease

Abstract:Dear Editor, We have read with great interest the paper ‘Completely diverted tube ileostomy compared with loop ileostomy for protection of low colorectal anastomosis: a pilot study’ by Zhou et al. [1]. We were pleased to have found this technique similar to the transluminal percutaneous ileostomy by probe proposed by our group, which is now conducting a prospective randomized clinical trial [2–4]. We have found some differences compared with our technique, however, and would be grateful if the authors would clarify some aspects. Do they irrigate the colon before the rectal resection? What kind of diet do the patients receive up to removal of the completely diverted tube ileostomy? The authors stated that all anastomotic leaks were treated conservatively. How did they diagnose this complication? Did they assess the durability of the faecal diversion in any way when patients with completely diverted tube ileostomy presented with leakage? Did they investigate any radiological leak? The diverting ileostomy involved the use of a rigid endotracheal tube with an inner diameter of 7 mm left in the ileum for about 30 days. How did the authors determine that the inflated balloon did not cause ischaemia of the ileal wall? Did any patient report discomfort because of the size and rigidity of the tube? How was the site of insertion closed? Did they observe any enteric leakage or enterocutaneous fistula? The staple line of the terminal ileum is likely to be disrupted by the faeces propelled by peristalsis and it has been shown that the inflated balloon of the ileostomy tube does not completely exclude transit of faeces except for the first 8 days approximately [5]. Did any patient report abdominal pain because of the non-passage of faeces owing to the staple line not yet being disrupted? We await your kind feedback.