A combination of subcuticular sutures and subcutaneous closed-suction drainage reduces the risk of incisional surgical site infection in loop ileostomy closure.
Closed-suction drainage
Loop ileostomy closure
Subcuticular suture
Surgical site infection
Journal
Surgery today
ISSN: 1436-2813
Titre abrégé: Surg Today
Pays: Japan
ID NLM: 9204360
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2021
Apr 2021
Historique:
received:
20
05
2020
accepted:
13
08
2020
pubmed:
6
9
2020
medline:
16
9
2021
entrez:
5
9
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a wound closure method using a combination of subcuticular sutures and subcutaneous closed-suction drainage (SS closure) for preventing incisional surgical site infection (SSI) in loop ileostomy closure. A total of 178 consecutive patients who underwent loop ileostomy closure at Nara Medical University Hospital between 2004 and 2018 were retrospectively assessed. The patients were divided into 2 groups: the conventional skin closure (CC) group from 2004 to 2009 (75 patients) and the SS closure (SS) group from 2010 to 2018 (103 patients). The incidence of incisional SSI was compared between the two groups, and the factors associated with incisional SSI were examined by univariate and multivariate analyses. Incisional SSI occurred in 7 cases (9.3%) in the CC group but was significantly reduced to only 1 case (0.9%) in the SS group (p = 0.034). In the univariate analysis, the hemoglobin levels, serum creatinine levels, and SS closure were associated with incisional SSI. SS closure was the only independent preventive factor for incisional SSI according to the multivariate analysis (hazard ratio = 0.24, p = 0.011). The combination of subcuticular sutures and subcutaneous closed-suction drainage may be a promising way of preventing incisional SSI in loop ileostomy closure.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32888080
doi: 10.1007/s00595-020-02128-x
pii: 10.1007/s00595-020-02128-x
doi:
Substances chimiques
Biomarkers
0
Hemoglobins
0
Creatine
MU72812GK0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
605-611Références
Hüser N, Michalski CW, Erkan M, Schuster T, Rosenberg R, Kleeff J, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the role of defunctioning stoma in low rectal cancer surgery. Ann Surg. 2008;248(1):52–60.
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e318176bf65
Tan WS, Tang CL, Shi L, Eu KW. Meta-analysis of defunctioning stomas in low anterior resection for rectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2009;96(5):462–72.
doi: 10.1002/bjs.6594
Kaidar-Person O, Person B, Wexner SD. Complications of construction and closure of temporary loop ileostomy. J Am Coll Surg. 2005;201(5):759–73.
doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2005.06.002
Wong KS, Remzi FH, Gorgun E, Arrigain S, Church JM, Preen M, et al. Loop ileostomy closure after restorative proctocolectomy: outcome in 1504 patients. Dis Colon Rectum. 2005;48(2):243–50.
doi: 10.1007/s10350-004-0771-0
Nakamura T, Sato T, Naito M, Yamanashi T, Miura H, Tsutsui A, et al. Risk factors for complications after diverting ileostomy closure in patients who have undergone rectal cancer surgery. Surg Today. 2017;47(10):1238–42.
doi: 10.1007/s00595-017-1510-1
Vermulst N, Vermeulen J, Hazebroek EJ, Coene PPLO, Van Der Harst E. Primary closure of the skin after stoma closure: management of wound infections is easy without (long-term) complications. Dig Surg. 2006;23(4):255–8.
doi: 10.1159/000095399
Lahat G, Tulchinsky H, Goldman G, Klauzner JM, Rabau M. Wound infection after ileostomy closure: a prospective randomized study comparing primary vs. delayed primary closure techniques. Tech Coloproctol. 2005;9(3):206–8.
doi: 10.1007/s10151-005-0228-z
Gachabayov M, Lee H, Chudner A, Dyatlov A, Zhang N, Bergamaschi R. Purse-string vs. linear skin closure at loop ileostomy reversal: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Tech Coloproctol. 2019;23(3):207–20.
doi: 10.1007/s10151-019-01952-9
Herrle F, Sandra-Petrescu F, Weiss C, Post S, Runkel N, Kienle P. Quality of life and timing of stoma closure in patients with rectal cancer undergoing low anterior resection with diverting stoma: a multicenter longitudinal observational study. Dis Colon Rectum. 2016;59(4):281–90.
doi: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000000545
Hackam DJ, Rotstein OD. Stoma closure and wound infection: an evaluation of risk factors. Can J Surg. 1995;38(2):144–8.
pubmed: 7728668
Banerjee A. Purse string skin closure after stoma reversal. Dis Colon Rectum. 1997;40(8):993–4.
doi: 10.1007/BF02051210
Mirbagheri N, Dark J, Skinner S. Factors predicting stomal wound closure infection rates. Tech Coloproctol. 2013;17(2):215–20.
doi: 10.1007/s10151-012-0908-4
Uchino M, Hirose K, Bando T, Chohno T, Takesue Y, Ikeuchi H. Randomized controlled trial of prophylactic negative-pressure wound therapy at ostomy closure for the prevention of delayed wound healing and surgical site infection in patients with ulcerative colitis. Dig Surg. 2016;33(6):449–54.
doi: 10.1159/000446550
Da PH, Wang L, Peng YF, Li M, Yao YF, Zhao J, et al. Subcutaneous vacuum drains reduce surgical site infection after primary closure of defunctioning ileostomy. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2015;30(7):977–82.
doi: 10.1007/s00384-015-2168-z
Frishman GN, Schwartz T, Hogan JW. Closure of Pfannenstiel skin incisions: staples vs. subcuticular suture. J Reprod Med Obstet Gynecol. 1997;42(10):627–30.
Rousseau JA, Girard K, Turcot-Lemay L, Thomas N. A randomized study comparing skin closure in cesarean sections: staples vs subcuticular sutures. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;200(3):265.e1–4.
doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2009.01.019
Johnson RG, Cohn WE, Thurer R, McCarthy JR, Sirois CA, Weintraub RM. Cutaneous closure after cardiac operations. A controlled, randomized, prospective comparison of intradermal versus staple closures. Ann Surg. 1997;226(5):606–12.
doi: 10.1097/00000658-199711000-00005
Shetty AA, Kumar VS, Morgan-Hough C, Georgeu GA, James KD, Nicholl JE. Comparing wound complication rates following closure of hip wounds with metallic skin staples or subcuticular vicryl suture: a prospective randomised trial. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2004;12(2):191–3.
doi: 10.1177/230949900401200210
Obermair A, Crandon A, Perrin L, Walsh T, Carrazo M, Nicklin J. Randomized trial of skin closure after laparotomy for gynaecological surgery. ANZ J Surg. 2007;77(6):460–3.
doi: 10.1111/j.1445-2197.2007.04095.x
Kobayashi S, Ito M, Sugito M, Kobayashi A, Nishizawa Y, Saito N. Association between incisional surgical site infection and the type of skin closure after stoma closure. Surg Today. 2011;41(7):941–5.
doi: 10.1007/s00595-010-4405-y
Lauscher JC, Schneider V, Lee LD, Stroux A, Buhr HJ, Kreis ME, et al. Necessity of subcutaneous suction drains in ileostomy reversal (DRASTAR)—a randomized, controlled bi-centered trial. Langenbeck’s Arch Surg. 2016;401(4):409–18.
doi: 10.1007/s00423-016-1436-x
Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML, Silver LC, Jarvis WR. Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection, 1999. Hospital infection control practices advisory committee. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1999;20(4):250–78.
doi: 10.1086/501620
Zografos GC, Martis K, Morris DL. Laser Doppler flowmetry in evaluation of cutaneous wound blood flow using various suturing techniques. Ann Surg. 1992;215(3):266–8.
doi: 10.1097/00000658-199203000-00011
Kanamaru S, Tsuchihashi K, Marino Y, Shimizu Y, Ito N. Assessing the effect of subcuticular buried sutures with subcutaneous closed suction drain to prevent surgical site infection in patients undergoing total cystectomy with urinary diversion using intestine. Acta Urol Jpn. 2014;60(11):537–42.
Watanabe J, Ota M, Kawamoto M, Akikazu Y, Suwa Y, Suwa H, et al. A randomized controlled trial of subcutaneous closed-suction Blake drains for the prevention of incisional surgical site infection after colorectal surgery. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2017;32(3):391–8.
doi: 10.1007/s00384-016-2687-2
Yoshimatsu K, Sagawa M, Yokomizo H, Yano Y, Okayama S, Satake M, et al. Subcuticular suturing with closed suction drainage for wound closure following stoma reversal. J Nippon Med Sch. 2018;85(3):183–6.
doi: 10.1272/jnms.JNMS.2018_85-27
Harold DM, Johnson EK, Rizzo JA, Steele SR. Primary closure of stoma site wounds after ostomy takedown. Am J Surg. 2010;199(5):621–4.
doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2010.01.008
O’Leary DP, Carter M, Wijewardene D, Burton M, Waldron D, Condon E, et al. The effect of purse-string approximation versus linear approximation of ileostomy reversal wounds on morbidity rates and patient satisfaction: the “STOMA” trial. Tech Coloproctol. 2017;21(11):863–8.
doi: 10.1007/s10151-017-1713-x
Rondelli F, Franco L, Balzarotti Canger RC, Ceccarelli G, Becattini C, Bugiantella W. Purse-string closure versus conventional primary closure of wound following stoma reversal: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Surg. 2018;52:208–13.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2018.02.027
Hu C, Zhang T, Ren B, Deng Z, Cai L, Lei J, et al. Effect of vacuum-assisted closure combined with open bone grafting to promote rabbit bone graft vascularization. Med Sci Monit. 2015;21:1200–6.
doi: 10.12659/MSM.895144
Streubel PN, Stinner DJ, Obremskey WT. Use of negative-pressure wound therapy in orthopaedic trauma. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2012;20(9):564–74.
doi: 10.5435/00124635-201209000-00003
Kim S, Kang SI. The effectiveness of negative-pressure wound therapy for wound healing after stoma reversal: a randomised control study (SR-PICO study). Trials. 2020;21(1):24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-3925-z .
doi: 10.1186/s13063-019-3925-z
pubmed: 31907033
pmcid: 6945515