Please note that the copy function is not enabled for this field.
If you wish to
modify
existing outcomes, please copy and paste the current outcome text into the Update field.
LOGIN
CREATE ACCOUNT
LOGIN
CREATE ACCOUNT
MY TRIALS
REGISTER TRIAL
FAQs
HINTS AND TIPS
DEFINITIONS
Trial Review
The ANZCTR website will be unavailable from 1pm until 3pm (AEDT) on Wednesday the 30th of October for website maintenance. Please be sure to log out of the system in order to avoid any loss of data.
The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been endorsed by the ANZCTR. Before participating in a study, talk to your health care provider and refer to this
information for consumers
Download to PDF
Trial registered on ANZCTR
Registration number
ACTRN12611000353998
Ethics application status
Approved
Date submitted
29/03/2011
Date registered
5/04/2011
Date last updated
5/04/2011
Type of registration
Retrospectively registered
Titles & IDs
Public title
Validity of protective tube cecostomy
Query!
Scientific title
A prospective randomized clinical trial of tube cecostomy versus loop colostomy for fecal diversion after left hemicolectomy due to obstructing disease regarding mean operative time, hospital stay, mortality rate, stoma care and patient satisfaction,
Query!
Secondary ID [1]
259881
0
no
Query!
Universal Trial Number (UTN)
Query!
Trial acronym
Query!
Linked study record
Query!
Health condition
Health condition(s) or problem(s) studied:
left hemicolectomy due to obstructing disease.
265473
0
Query!
Condition category
Condition code
Surgery
265627
265627
0
0
Query!
Surgical techniques
Query!
Intervention/exposure
Study type
Interventional
Query!
Description of intervention(s) / exposure
Group A: 44 patients undergoing tube cecostomy for fecal diversion after left hemicolectomy due to obstructing cancer. Tube cecostomy was performed as described by Clark and Hubay in 1972.Two concentric purse-string sutures are placed over the anterior portion of the cecum leaving 3 cm. distance between them . A serosal incision is made central to the sutures and a suction trochar passed into the cecum to deflate it. Following this, the mucosa of the cecum is grasped with fine hemostats and elevated. A number 28 Foley catheter with a 30 cc. balloon is passed through the mucosal opening and a ligature is tied snugly around the everted mucosal edge to insure hemostasis. Then, 4 seromuscular stitches are applied to fix the cecum to the parietal peritoneum. The cecal tube is connected to the collecting tube. The cecal tubes were removed within 8 weeks.
Group B: 44 patients undergoing loop colostomy by exeriorization of the transverse colon in the form of loop as diverting stoma for fecal diversion after left hemicolectomy.
The colostomies were closed within 8 weeks.
Query!
Intervention code [1]
264304
0
Treatment: Surgery
Query!
Comparator / control treatment
Intervention: tube cecostomy Comparator/Control: loop colostomy .
The colostomies were closed within 8 weeks
Regarding the demographic data and the cause of bowel obstruction, we found no significant differences in both groups . Operative time, in group B, the duration of the primary operation was considerably longer and statistically significant compared with that of group A as long time was needed to mobilize the colon and fashioning the stoma. Stoma care and patient satisfaction were better in patients with cecostomy group.
The hospital stay for primary operation (admission, resuscitation, resection with colostomy) in patients of group B was 18-22 days and 7-9 days for colostomy closure . The total hospital stay in group B was 25-31 days . While the stay for primary operation in patients of group A ( admission , resuscitation, resection with cecostomy) was 14-16 days and 2-3 days for cecostomy tube removal . The total hospital stay in group A was 16-19 days [ P< 0.0003] .
Query!
Control group
Active
Query!
Outcomes
Primary outcome [1]
262412
0
Primary operation mortality rate.
Primary operation means the left hemicolectomy with the stoma construction.
operation mortality rate is assessed by clinical means
Query!
Assessment method [1]
262412
0
Query!
Timepoint [1]
262412
0
2 weeks postoperative
Query!
Secondary outcome [1]
273731
0
Operative time.
Operative time is assessed clinically
Query!
Assessment method [1]
273731
0
Query!
Timepoint [1]
273731
0
intraoperative
Query!
Secondary outcome [2]
273732
0
Stoma care and patient satisfaction, both are assessed by clinical data and patient's report.
Query!
Assessment method [2]
273732
0
Query!
Timepoint [2]
273732
0
3 months
Query!
Secondary outcome [3]
273733
0
Re-operations for stoma closure, is assessed clinically
Query!
Assessment method [3]
273733
0
Query!
Timepoint [3]
273733
0
after these 3 months
Query!
Secondary outcome [4]
273734
0
Hospital stay, is assessed according medical recrods data and registration unit
Query!
Assessment method [4]
273734
0
Query!
Timepoint [4]
273734
0
within one month
Query!
Eligibility
Key inclusion criteria
Inclusion criteria:
The following inclusion criteria were defined: (1) gross large bowel obstruction on plain films of the abdomen with compatible history and physical findings; (2) barium enema showing complete colorectal obstruction; (3) surgical finding of complete large bowel obstruction
Query!
Minimum age
22
Years
Query!
Query!
Maximum age
65
Years
Query!
Query!
Sex
Both males and females
Query!
Can healthy volunteers participate?
No
Query!
Key exclusion criteria
Patients with perforation in addition to obstruction, and those with uncertain diagnosis or insufficient clinical data were also excluded from the study
Query!
Study design
Purpose of the study
Treatment
Query!
Allocation to intervention
Randomised controlled trial
Query!
Procedure for enrolling a subject and allocating the treatment (allocation concealment procedures)
Query!
Methods used to generate the sequence in which subjects will be randomised (sequence generation)
Query!
Masking / blinding
Open (masking not used)
Query!
Who is / are masked / blinded?
Query!
Query!
Query!
Query!
Intervention assignment
Parallel
Query!
Other design features
Query!
Phase
Query!
Type of endpoint/s
Query!
Statistical methods / analysis
Query!
Recruitment
Recruitment status
Completed
Query!
Date of first participant enrolment
Anticipated
1/01/1998
Query!
Actual
Query!
Date of last participant enrolment
Anticipated
Query!
Actual
Query!
Date of last data collection
Anticipated
Query!
Actual
Query!
Sample size
Target
44
Query!
Accrual to date
Query!
Final
Query!
Recruitment outside Australia
Country [1]
3320
0
Egypt
Query!
State/province [1]
3320
0
Query!
Funding & Sponsors
Funding source category [1]
264764
0
Hospital
Query!
Name [1]
264764
0
Port-Fouad general Hospital.
Query!
Address [1]
264764
0
Port-Fouad general Hospital, Port-Fouad, Egypt
Query!
Country [1]
264764
0
Egypt
Query!
Primary sponsor type
Individual
Query!
Name
Aly Saber
Query!
Address
Port-Fouad general Hospital. Port-Fouad, Egypt
Query!
Country
Egypt
Query!
Secondary sponsor category [1]
263901
0
None
Query!
Name [1]
263901
0
Query!
Address [1]
263901
0
Query!
Country [1]
263901
0
Query!
Ethics approval
Ethics application status
Approved
Query!
Summary
Brief summary
Historically, cecostomy has been advocated to protect a left sided anastomosis, used as a treatment for large bowel obstruction, cecal perforation. Hypothesis: For temporary fecal diversion after left hemicolectomy due to obstructing cancer or sigmoid volvulus , tube cecostomy may help to reduce the rate of anastomotic leakage and also to avoid the second operation for stoma closure. Methods: Over eleven years between January 1998 and November 2009, all patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria with large bowel obstruction due to cancer or sigmoid volvulus only, were randomly divided into two groups: A and B. Group A: 44 patients undergoing tube cecostomy as diverting stomas after left hemicolectomy due to obstructing cancer. Tube cecostomy was performed as described by Clark and Hubay in 1972 . Group B: 44 patients undergoing loop colostomy as diverting stomas after left hemicolectomy due to obstructing cancer. Conclusion: Tube cecostomy is of therapeutic value in select situations. Proper patient selection, careful tube placement, and vigilant postoperative tube care should provide adequate function with minimal morbidity.
Query!
Trial website
Query!
Trial related presentations / publications
Not published yet
Query!
Public notes
Query!
Contacts
Principal investigator
Name
32408
0
Query!
Address
32408
0
Query!
Country
32408
0
Query!
Phone
32408
0
Query!
Fax
32408
0
Query!
Email
32408
0
Query!
Contact person for public queries
Name
15655
0
Aly Saber
Query!
Address
15655
0
Port-Fouad general Hospital, Port-Fouad, Egypt.
Query!
Country
15655
0
Egypt
Query!
Phone
15655
0
+2/066/ 3406474
Query!
Fax
15655
0
Query!
Email
15655
0
[email protected]
Query!
Contact person for scientific queries
Name
6583
0
Aly Saber
Query!
Address
6583
0
Port-Fouad general Hospital, Port-Fouad, Egypt.
Query!
Country
6583
0
Egypt
Query!
Phone
6583
0
+2/066/3406474
Query!
Fax
6583
0
Query!
Email
6583
0
[email protected]
Query!
No information has been provided regarding IPD availability
What supporting documents are/will be available?
No Supporting Document Provided
Results publications and other study-related documents
Documents added manually
No documents have been uploaded by study researchers.
Documents added automatically
Source
Title
Year of Publication
DOI
Dimensions AI
Efficacy of protective tube cecostomy after restorative resection for colorectal cancer: A randomized trial
2013
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2013.02.024
N.B. These documents automatically identified may not have been verified by the study sponsor.
Download to PDF