ArticleTurkish journal of surgery2026
Novel self-reversing tube ileostomy as an alternative for conventional loop ileostomy for fecal diversion: A cohort tertiary care center study.
Article in Turkish journal of surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Letter to the editor regarding "Novel self-reversing tube ileostomy as an alternative for conventional loop ileostomy for fecal diversion".Turkish journal of surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Anastomotic leakage following colorectal anastomosis poses substantial morbidity and mortality. Defunctioning loop ileostomy has been employed as a preventive measure, but has its own complications, including its reversal. In light of these challenges, tube ileostomy has emerged as an alternative, seeking to fulfil the same purpose as loop ileostomy while minimising complications associated with stoma creation and reversal. Material and Methods: Conducted as a cohort study, a total of 88 patients were evenly distributed into two groups. Data collection spanned six months post-surgery or until the conclusion of the study period, with monthly follow-ups. Both types of ileostomy were performed in both elective and emergency settings. Results: In this study comparing tube and loop ileostomy, tube ileostomy showed several advantages: Lower output (218±19 mL vs. 333.33±58 mL), shorter hospital stay (8.3 vs. 11.32 days), fewer stoma bag needs, and faster closure without surgical reversal. Complications like skin excoriation, electrolyte imbalance, and hypertrophic scarring were significantly lower in tube ileostomy. Although tube-related issues like blockade (40.9%) and leakage (15.9%) occurred, overall, comorbidity handling and patient independence were better. Statistical analysis confirmed significant differences in key parameters, favouring tube ileostomy as a safer, simpler faecal diversion alternative. Conclusion: In the early phases of this investigation, tube ileostomy demonstrated favourable outcomes. The observed reduction in complications, ease of management for tube ileostomy-related issues, and decreased hospitalisation and reversion surgery requirements highlight its potential advantages. Further exploration and long-term follow-up are warranted to validate these initial findings and ascertain the sustained efficacy and safety of tube ileostomy.
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.