Philipp-Alexander Neumann1, Stefan Reischl2, Felix Berg2, Carsten Jäger2, Helmut Friess2, Daniel Reim2, Güralp O Ceyhan2,3. 1. Department of Surgery, Klinikum rechts der Isar, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany. Philipp-Alexander.Neumann@tum.de. 2. Department of Surgery, Klinikum rechts der Isar, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany. 3. Department of General Surgery, HPB-Unit, School of Medicine, Acibadem Mehmet Ali Aydinlar University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Compromised wound healing following stoma reversal is a frequent problem. The use of negative suction drainage for reduction of complications remains controversial. METHODS: The patient database of our center was reviewed for patients with ileostomy reversal between 2007 and 2017. Risk factors for wound complications were analyzed using multivariate regression analysis. Systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. Ultimately, results of this study were integrated into meta-analysis to assess the effect of drainage placement on wound healing. RESULTS: In our institutional analysis, a total of 406 patients with ileostomy reversal were included (n = 240 (59.1%) with drainage vs. n = 166 (40.8%) without drainage). In multivariate analysis, body mass index (BMI) was a risk factor for wound complications (odds ratio (95% CI) 1.06 (1.02-1.12)). Patients with drainage needed significantly fewer interventions than those without drainage (17.1% vs. 28.9%, p = 0.005). Placement of drainage significantly reduced the risk of wound complications even in the group with elevated BMI (odds ratio (95% CI) 0.462 (0.28-0.76), p = 0.003). Meta-analysis identified 6 studies with a total of 1180 patients eligible for further analysis (2 prospectively randomized trials; 4 retrospective cohort studies). Overall analysis revealed a significantly beneficial effect of wound drainage following ileostomy reversal (RR (95% CI) 0.47 (0.34, 0.66); p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: In our institutional analysis as well as meta-analysis, the use of subcutaneous suction drains was beneficial for prevention of wound healing complications following ostomy reversal. Drainage placement is especially valuable in high-risk situations such as in obese patients.
BACKGROUND: Compromised wound healing following stoma reversal is a frequent problem. The use of negative suction drainage for reduction of complications remains controversial. METHODS: The patient database of our center was reviewed for patients with ileostomy reversal between 2007 and 2017. Risk factors for wound complications were analyzed using multivariate regression analysis. Systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. Ultimately, results of this study were integrated into meta-analysis to assess the effect of drainage placement on wound healing. RESULTS: In our institutional analysis, a total of 406 patients with ileostomy reversal were included (n = 240 (59.1%) with drainage vs. n = 166 (40.8%) without drainage). In multivariate analysis, body mass index (BMI) was a risk factor for wound complications (odds ratio (95% CI) 1.06 (1.02-1.12)). Patients with drainage needed significantly fewer interventions than those without drainage (17.1% vs. 28.9%, p = 0.005). Placement of drainage significantly reduced the risk of wound complications even in the group with elevated BMI (odds ratio (95% CI) 0.462 (0.28-0.76), p = 0.003). Meta-analysis identified 6 studies with a total of 1180 patients eligible for further analysis (2 prospectively randomized trials; 4 retrospective cohort studies). Overall analysis revealed a significantly beneficial effect of wound drainage following ileostomy reversal (RR (95% CI) 0.47 (0.34, 0.66); p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: In our institutional analysis as well as meta-analysis, the use of subcutaneous suction drains was beneficial for prevention of wound healing complications following ostomy reversal. Drainage placement is especially valuable in high-risk situations such as in obesepatients.
Authors: D P O'Leary; M Carter; D Wijewardene; M Burton; D Waldron; E Condon; J C Coffey; C Peirce Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2017-11-17 Impact factor: 3.781
Authors: Hong-Da Pan; Lin Wang; Yi-Fan Peng; Ming Li; Yun-Feng Yao; Jun Zhao; Tian-Cheng Zhan; Chang-Zheng Du; Jin Gu Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2015-02-21 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Mike K Liang; Linda T Li; Andres Avellaneda; Jennifer M Moffett; Stephanie C Hicks; Samir S Awad Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Norbert Hüser; Christoph W Michalski; Mert Erkan; Tibor Schuster; Robert Rosenberg; Jörg Kleeff; Helmut Friess Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Daniel I Chu; Christopher R Schlieve; Dorin T Colibaseanu; Paul J Simpson; Amy E Wagie; Robert R Cima; Elizabeth B Habermann Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2014-09-13 Impact factor: 3.452