ArticlePakistan journal of medical sciences2025
A comparison of loop and split stoma for the management of various congenital and acquired gastrointestinal disorders requiring colostomy: An analysis of complications and outcomes.
Article in Pakistan journal of medical sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Neonatal single-site divided colostomy in anorectal malformation.Pediatric surgery international · 2026Article
- Lactate as a biomarker for discriminating and assessing prognosis of neonatal necrotising enterocolitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The study aimed to compare the outcomes and complications of loop colostomy (LC) and split colostomy (SC) in pediatric patients requiring colostomy for various congenital and acquired gastrointestinal disorders. Additionally, we also wanted to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of each technique and determine their role in contemporary clinical practice. Methodology: This study includes patients at the Department of Pediatric Surgery, Dicle University Faculty of Medicine, between January 2010 to January 2025. A total of 589 patients were analyzed, with data collected on demographics, stoma type (loop or split), associated complications and clinical outcomes. Patients were categorized into two groups: Group-I (loop stoma) and Group-II (split stoma) and the findings were compared statistically. Results: The most common indications for stoma creation were anorectal malformations (43.8%), Hirschsprung's disease (24.3%), gastrointestinal perforation (13.8%) and necrotizing enterocolitis (6.3%). Of the 589 patients, 59.3% had loop stomas and 40.7% had split stomas. Common complications included excoriation (11.2%) and wound dehiscence (10.5%). Loop stomas had higher rates of prolapse (16%), evisceration (2%) and overall complications (38%), while split stomas showed higher rates of excoriation (14%) and wound dehiscence (14%). Stomas in the small intestine had higher rates of skin-related complications, while those in the sigmoid colon had a higher rate of stricture (3%). Conclusion: Both loop and split stomas are effective for managing pediatric gastrointestinal disorders, but each technique carries its own risk profile. Loop colostomies are more prone to prolapse and other internal complications, while split colostomies tend to have more skin-related issues. The choice of stoma type should be tailored to each patient's specific clinical condition and anatomy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.