{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014950166112956811, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.409574468085107, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[Comparison of colostomies and ileostomies as diverting stomas after low anterior resection].

OBJECTIVE
The aim of the present study was to evaluate two procedures (transverse colostomy and ileostomy) as diverting stomas after low anterior resection to determine whether one is superior to the other.


MATERIAL AND METHOD
A literature review was performed to compare both stomas from construction to closure.


RESULTS
Distinguishing between the complications specific to stoma construction from those caused by anterior resection is difficult. While the stoma is in place, transverse colostomy seems to be better tolerated. Colostomy closure seems to have more septic complications, although the real frequency of bowel obstruction after ileostomy closure remains to be determined.


CONCLUSIONS
Given the characteristics of previous studies, the superiority of one diverting stoma over the other cannot be established. Ileostomy seems better tolerated by patients and is associated with a lower complication rate after closure (bowel obstruction remains to be evaluated). Randomized prospective studies with a larger number of patients are required to determine which of these procedures is superior.