Literature DB >> 24407267

The use of purse-string skin closure in loop ileostomy reversals leads to lower wound infection rates--a single high-volume centre experience.

Nils Habbe1, Sabine Hannes, Juliane Liese, Guido Woeste, Wolf Otto Bechstein, Christoph Strey.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Wound infections affect not only the individual patient but lead to an increase in medical costs. After ileostomy reversal, surgical site infections are a common problem. The objective of the study was to compare the infection rates of purse-string and conventional skin closure techniques in a high volume setting.
METHODS: Patients undergoing ileostomy reversal at the Goethe University Hospital between January 2009 and August 2012 were retrospectively analysed regarding surgical site infections and associated risk factors. Patients received either conventional skin closure (running, interrupted or stapled suturing; group C) or subcuticular purse-string suture (group PS).
RESULTS: In total, 114 patients have been analysed. Conventional wound closure was performed in 81 patients and 33 patients received purse-string skin closure. The groups did not differ regarding age, gender, indication for ileostomy, previous chemotherapy, and operation time. Median hospital stay was 7 days (3-34) in group PS and 8 (3-53) in group C (p = 0.15). Wound infections only occurred in groups C (n = 10, 12 %) compared to group PS (n = 0; 0 %; p = 0.034), and the wound closure technique was the only significant factor associated with surgical site infection. Surgery performed by a resident under supervision was not a risk factor for complications compared to the procedure done by a senior surgeon (p = 0.73).
CONCLUSION: This study reveals an advantage of the purse-string skin closure technique in ileostomy reversals analysing a large cohort of patients. Therefore, we recommend the use of the purse-string skin closure in ileostomy reversals as one way to lower wound infection rates.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24407267     DOI: 10.1007/s00384-013-1822-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis        ISSN: 0179-1958            Impact factor:   2.571


  23 in total

1.  Randomized clinical trial of short-term outcomes following purse-string versus conventional closure of ileostomy wounds.

Authors:  K Reid; P Pockney; T Pollitt; B Draganic; S R Smith
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 6.939

Review 2.  Complications of construction and closure of temporary loop ileostomy.

Authors:  Orit Kaidar-Person; Benjamin Person; Steven D Wexner
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2005-09-06       Impact factor: 6.113

Review 3.  The morbidity surrounding reversal of defunctioning ileostomies: a systematic review of 48 studies including 6,107 cases.

Authors:  Andre Chow; Henry S Tilney; Paraskevas Paraskeva; Santhini Jeyarajah; Emmanouil Zacharakis; Sanjay Purkayastha
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2009-02-17       Impact factor: 2.571

4.  Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision.

Authors:  W I Law; K W Chu; J W Ho; C W Chan
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 2.565

5.  Loop ileostomy versus loop colostomy for defunctioning low anastomoses during rectal cancer surgery.

Authors:  E Rullier; N Le Toux; C Laurent; J L Garrelon; M Parneix; J Saric
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 3.352

6.  A multicenter randomized clinical trial of primary anastomosis or Hartmann's procedure for perforated left colonic diverticulitis with purulent or fecal peritonitis.

Authors:  Christian Eugen Oberkofler; Andreas Rickenbacher; Dimitri Aristotle Raptis; Kuno Lehmann; Peter Villiger; Christian Buchli; Felix Grieder; Hans Gelpke; Marco Decurtins; Adrien A Tempia-Caliera; Nicolas Demartines; Dieter Hahnloser; Pierre-Alain Clavien; Stefan Breitenstein
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 12.969

7.  A technique for wound closure that minimizes sepsis after stoma closure.

Authors:  Christopher Derek Sutton; Nigel Williams; Leslie-Jayne Marshall; Geraint Lloyd; William Michael Thomas
Journal:  ANZ J Surg       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 1.872

Review 8.  Loop ileostomy versus loop colostomy for fecal diversion after colorectal or coloanal anastomosis: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  F Rondelli; P Reboldi; A Rulli; F Barberini; A Guerrisi; L Izzo; A Bolognese; P Covarelli; C Boselli; C Becattini; G Noya
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2009-02-12       Impact factor: 2.571

9.  Randomized clinical trial of intestinal ostomy takedown comparing pursestring wound closure vs conventional closure to eliminate the risk of wound infection.

Authors:  Daniel Camacho-Mauries; José Luis Rodriguez-Díaz; Noel Salgado-Nesme; Quintín H González; Omar Vergara-Fernández
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 4.585

10.  Conventional Linear versus Purse-string Skin Closure after Loop Ileostomy Reversal: Comparison of Wound Infection Rates and Operative Outcomes.

Authors:  Jung Ryeol Lee; Young Wan Kim; Jong Je Sung; Ok-Pyung Song; Hyung Chul Kim; Cheol-Wan Lim; Gyu-Seok Cho; Jun Chul Jung; Eung-Jin Shin
Journal:  J Korean Soc Coloproctol       Date:  2011-04-30
View more
  9 in total

1.  Purse-string closure technique reduces the incidence of incisional hernias following the reversal of temporary ileostomy.

Authors:  Mazen A Juratli; Nour-Eldin A Nour-Eldin; Hans Ackermann; Nils Habbe; Sabine Hannes; Wolf O Bechstein; Guido Woeste
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2018-03-09       Impact factor: 2.571

2.  Increased postoperative complications after protective ileostomy closure delay: An institutional study.

Authors:  Ines Rubio-Perez; Miguel Leon; Daniel Pastor; Joaquin Diaz Dominguez; Ramon Cantero
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2014-09-27

3.  The Effectiveness of Contralateral Drainage in Reducing Superficial Incisional Surgical Site Infection in Loop Ileostomy Closure: Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Anna Serracant; Xavier Serra-Aracil; Laura Mora-López; Anna Pallisera-Lloveras; Sheila Serra-Pla; Alba Zárate-Pinedo; Salvador Navarro-Soto
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2019-07       Impact factor: 3.352

Review 4.  Considerations in Stoma Reversal.

Authors:  Karen L Sherman; Steven D Wexner
Journal:  Clin Colon Rectal Surg       Date:  2017-05-22

Review 5.  Purse-string skin closure versus linear skin closure techniques in stoma closure: a comprehensive meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis of randomised trials.

Authors:  Shahab Hajibandeh; Shahin Hajibandeh; Andrew Kennedy-Dalby; Sheik Rehman; Reza Arsalani Zadeh
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2018-08-03       Impact factor: 2.571

6.  Necessity of subcutaneous suction drains in ileostomy reversal (DRASTAR)-a randomized, controlled bi-centered trial.

Authors:  J C Lauscher; V Schneider; L D Lee; A Stroux; H J Buhr; M E Kreis; J P Ritz
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2016-05-01       Impact factor: 3.445

Review 7.  Early Closure of Defunctioning Loop Ileostomy: Is It Beneficial for the Patient? A Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Benjamin Menahem; Jean Lubrano; Antoine Vallois; Arnaud Alves
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 3.352

8.  Evidence-based adoption of purse-string skin closure for stoma wounds.

Authors:  Nilotpal Behuria; Jayant Kumar Banerjee; Sita Ram Ghosh; Shrirang Vasant Kulkarni; Ramanathan Saranga Bharathi
Journal:  Med J Armed Forces India       Date:  2019-06-03

9.  The association of age with decline in renal function after low anterior resection and loop ileostomy for rectal cancer: a retrospective cohort prognostic factor study.

Authors:  Guido Woeste; Teresa Schreckenbach; Amal Rhemouga; Stefan Buettner; Wolf O Bechstein
Journal:  BMC Geriatr       Date:  2021-01-19       Impact factor: 3.921

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.