Literature DB >> 30824960

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

Anna Serracant1, Xavier Serra-Aracil2, Laura Mora-López1, Anna Pallisera-Lloveras1, Sheila Serra-Pla1, Alba Zárate-Pinedo1, Salvador Navarro-Soto1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Loop ileostomy reduces the rates of morbidity due to colorectal anastomotic dehiscence. For its part, ileostomy closure is associated with low mortality (0-4%) but substantial morbidity (11-37%). Incisional surgical site infection (SSI) is one of the most frequent complications (2-40%).
METHODS: A single-center, prospective, randomized controlled clinical trial of two study groups: control (conventional primary skin closure) and experimental (primary skin closure with a contralateral Penrose® drain).
RESULTS: Seventy patients undergoing loop ileostomy closure between April 2013 and June 2017 were included (35 per branch). Four were later removed from the study. Six of the remaining 66 patients (per protocol analysis) were diagnosed with incisional SSI (9.1%); there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups (control group: 9.7%; experimental group: 8.6%) or between the risk factors associated with incisional SSI. Rates of overall and relevant morbidity (Clavien ≥ III) were considerable (28.1% and 9.1%, respectively), and there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups. No patients died.
CONCLUSION: Contralateral drainage does not significantly affect the results of primary ileostomy closure. The rate of incisional SSI was similar in the drainage and non-drainage groups, and the overall rate of 9.1% was in the low range of those reported in the literature. The absence of mortality (0%) and the non-negligible rates of overall and relevant morbidity (28.1% and 9.1%, respectively) in our series suggest that loop ileostomy is a safe procedure. However, the bowel reconstruction involves risks that must be borne in mind. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered and approved by the clinical research ethics committee of the study center (reference number 2012076). Clinical trial was registered in ClinicalTrial.gov (identification number NCT02574702 and reference: ILEOS-ISS_2013).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30824960     DOI: 10.1007/s00268-019-04972-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Surg        ISSN: 0364-2313            Impact factor:   3.352


  27 in total

1.  Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection, 1999. Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee.

Authors:  A J Mangram; T C Horan; M L Pearson; L C Silver; W R Jarvis
Journal:  Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 3.254

2.  Wound infection after ileostomy closure: a prospective randomized study comparing primary vs. delayed primary closure techniques.

Authors:  G Lahat; H Tulchinsky; G Goldman; J M Klauzner; M Rabau
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2005-11-21       Impact factor: 3.781

3.  The nature of adverse events in hospitalized patients. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study II.

Authors:  L L Leape; T A Brennan; N Laird; A G Lawthers; A R Localio; B A Barnes; L Hebert; J P Newhouse; P C Weiler; H Hiatt
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1991-02-07       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 4.  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

5.  What Happened at Hawthorne?: New evidence suggests the Hawthorne effect resulted from operant reinforcement contingencies.

Authors:  H M Parsons
Journal:  Science       Date:  1974-03-08       Impact factor: 47.728

6.  The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience.

Authors:  Pierre A Clavien; Jeffrey Barkun; Michelle L de Oliveira; Jean Nicolas Vauthey; Daniel Dindo; Richard D Schulick; Eduardo de Santibañes; Juan Pekolj; Ksenija Slankamenac; Claudio Bassi; Rolf Graf; René Vonlanthen; Robert Padbury; John L Cameron; Masatoshi Makuuchi
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 12.969

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.  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

Review 9.  Systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials comparing purse-string vs conventional linear closure of the wound following ileostomy (stoma) closure.

Authors:  Muhammad Shafique Sajid; Muhammad I Bhatti; William Fa Miles
Journal:  Gastroenterol Rep (Oxf)       Date:  2014-07-10

Review 10.  Systematic review of the Hawthorne effect: new concepts are needed to study research participation effects.

Authors:  Jim McCambridge; John Witton; Diana R Elbourne
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2013-11-22       Impact factor: 6.437

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.