Meta-analysis and single-center experience on the protective effect of negative suction drains on wound healing after stoma reversal.
Colorectal surgery
Ileostomy
Negative suction drainage
Journal
International journal of colorectal disease
ISSN: 1432-1262
Titre abrégé: Int J Colorectal Dis
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8607899
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2020
Mar 2020
Historique:
accepted:
11
12
2019
pubmed:
26
12
2019
medline:
20
11
2020
entrez:
26
12
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Compromised wound healing following stoma reversal is a frequent problem. The use of negative suction drainage for reduction of complications remains controversial. 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. 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). 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.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Compromised wound healing following stoma reversal is a frequent problem. The use of negative suction drainage for reduction of complications remains controversial.
METHODS
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
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
CONCLUSIONS
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31875261
doi: 10.1007/s00384-019-03492-y
pii: 10.1007/s00384-019-03492-y
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
403-411Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Références
Int J Colorectal Dis. 2018 Oct;33(10):1319-1332
pubmed: 30074070
J Gastrointest Surg. 2015 Feb;19(2):327-34
pubmed: 25217092
Tech Coloproctol. 2013 Aug;17(4):345-51
pubmed: 23354904
Tech Coloproctol. 2017 Nov;21(11):863-868
pubmed: 29149428
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013 Aug;132(2):443-50
pubmed: 23584625
Ann Surg. 2008 Jul;248(1):52-60
pubmed: 18580207
JAMA Surg. 2013 Feb;148(2):183-9
pubmed: 23426597
Int J Colorectal Dis. 2015 Jul;30(7):977-82
pubmed: 25700809
World J Surg. 2008 Sep;32(9):2101-6
pubmed: 18563482
Tech Coloproctol. 2013 Apr;17(2):215-20
pubmed: 23076288
Int J Surg. 2010;8(5):336-41
pubmed: 20171303
Lancet. 2007 Oct 20;370(9596):1453-7
pubmed: 18064739
Colorectal Dis. 2013 Aug;15(8):1033-40
pubmed: 23634717
Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2016 Jun;401(4):409-18
pubmed: 27138020
Int J Surg. 2016 Dec;36(Pt A):233-239
pubmed: 27815185
Br Med J. 1972 Aug 19;3(5824):459-62
pubmed: 5069224
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018 Jun;141(6):1542-1549
pubmed: 29608530
J Gastrointest Surg. 2017 Dec;21(12):2048-2055
pubmed: 28971302
Dis Colon Rectum. 2009 Mar;52(3):412-8
pubmed: 19333040
Surgery. 2016 Apr;159(4):1129-39
pubmed: 26706610