To compare the clinical benefits of double-tube end ileostomy versus traditional end ileostomy in patients undergoing low anterior resection for rectal cancer.
Key Findings:
No significant differences in intraoperative blood loss, postoperative bowel function recovery, or complication rates (P > 0.05).
Double-tube ileostomy had shorter stoma creation time (25.39 ± 2.85 min) and reduced postoperative hospital stays (8.89 ± 2.30 days).
Total hospitalization costs were significantly lower in the double-tube group (57,796.50 ± 5306.30 RMB).
Fewer complications in the double-tube group (1 case of leakage, 5.56%) compared to the traditional group (4 cases, 8.51%).
Higher SCL-90 scores for somatization and sleep/eating problems in the traditional group (P < 0.05).
Interpretation:
Double-tube end ileostomy is a safe and effective alternative to traditional ileostomy, offering benefits in terms of operative time, hospital stay, costs, and fewer complications.
Limitations:
Retrospective design may introduce selection bias.
Limited sample size may affect generalizability.
Conclusion:
Double-tube end ileostomy presents a promising alternative to traditional methods, reducing physiological, psychological, and financial burdens on patients.
