Top

Techniques in Coloproctology

Published in:

01-11-2017 | Original Article

The effect of purse-string approximation versus linear approximation of ileostomy reversal wounds on morbidity rates and patient satisfaction: the 'STOMA' trial

Authors: D. P. O’Leary, M. Carter, D. Wijewardene, M. Burton, D. Waldron, E. Condon, J. C. Coffey, C. Peirce

Published in: Techniques in Coloproctology | Issue 11/2017

Abstract

Background

Ileostomy reversal is associated with surgical site infection (SSI) rates as high as 37%. Recent literature suggests that employing a purse-string approximation (PSA) of the reversal wound reduces this rate of SSI. Thus we wished to perform a randomised controlled trial to compare SSI rates in purse-string versus linear closure (PLC) wounds following ileostomy reversal.

Methods

A randomised, controlled trial was conducted at University Hospital Limerick. Sixty-one patients undergoing ileostomy reversal were included. Thirty-four patients were randomised to PSA and 27 patients to linear closure. The primary endpoint was incidence of SSI and secondary endpoints measured were quality of life and satisfaction with cosmesis. Statistical analysis was performed on a per protocol basis using SPSS version 22.0.

Results

Three patients in the PSA group developed an SSI compared to 8 in the PLC group at 30 days (8 vs 30%, p = 0.03). The mean time to SSI diagnosis was faster in the PSA group (3 vs 12.3 days, p = 0.08). Patients who developed SSI experienced a longer mean length of stay (6.8 vs 11.4 days, p = 0.012). On multivariate analysis, PLC was the only predictive factor of SSI formation (p < 0.001). There was no difference in patient satisfaction between the two study groups (p = 0.14).

Conclusions

PSA of wounds following ileostomy reversal significantly reduces SSI formation compared to linear approximation without any effect on patient satisfaction.

Tan WS, Tang CL, Shi L, Eu KW (2009) Meta-analysis of defunctioning stomas in low anterior resection for rectal cancer. Br J Surg 96:462–472CrossRefPubMed

Biondo S, Kreisler E, Fraccalvieri D, Basany EE, Codina-Cazador A, Ortiz H (2012) Risk factors for surgical site infection after elective resection for rectal cancer. A multivariate analysis on 2131 patients. Colorectal Dis 14:e95–e102CrossRefPubMed

Camacho-Mauries D, Rodriguez-Díaz J, Salgado-Nesme N, González Q, Vergara-Fernández O (2013) Randomized clinical trial of intestinal ostomy takedown comparing pursestring wound closure vs conventional closure to eliminate the risk of wound infection. Dis Colon Rectum 56:205–211CrossRefPubMed

van de Pavoordt HD, Fazio VW, Jagelman DG, Lavery IC, Weakley FL (1987) The outcome of loop ileostomy closure in 293 cases. Int J Colorectal Dis 2:214–217CrossRefPubMed

Banerjee A (1997) Pursestring skin closure after stoma reversal. Dis Colon Rectum 40:993–994CrossRefPubMed

McCartan DP, Burke JP, Walsh SR, Coffey JC (2013) Purse-string approximation is superior to primary skin closure following stoma reversal: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Tech Coloproctol 17:345–351CrossRefPubMed

Lopez MP, Melendres MF, Maglangit SA, Roxas MF, Monroy HJ 3rd, Crisostomo AC (2015) A randomized controlled clinical trial comparing the outcomes of circumferential subcuticular wound approximation (CSWA) with conventional wound closure after stoma reversal. Tech Coloproctol 19:461–468CrossRefPubMed

Lee JT, Marquez TT, Clerc D et al (2014) Pursestring closure of the stoma site leads to fewer wound infections: results from a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Dis Colon Rectum 57:1282–1289CrossRefPubMed

Hsieh MC, Kuo LT, Chi CC, Huang WS, Chin CC (2015) Pursestring closure versus conventional primary closure following stoma reversal to reduce surgical site infection rate: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Dis Colon Rectum 58:808–815CrossRefPubMed

10.

Zubaidah NH, Soo JY, Qisti N, Ong KW, Gee T (2016) Wound infection following stoma reversal: a prospective comparative study between primary closure and partial closure with intervening silver dressings. Int J Colorectal Dis 31:1381–1382CrossRefPubMed

11.

Alvandipour M, Gharedaghi B, Khodabakhsh H, Karami MY (2016) Purse-string versus linear conventional skin wound closure of an ileostomy: a randomized clinical trial. Ann Coloproctol 32:144–149CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (1999) Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection. Atlanta. http://www.cdc.gov/hicpac/SSI/001_SSI.html. Accessed Jan 2013

13.

Sutton CD, Williams N, Marshall LJ, Lloyd G, Thomas WM (2002) A technique for wound closure that minimizes sepsis after stoma closure. ANZ J Surg 72:766–767CrossRefPubMed

14.

Milanchi S, Nasseri Y, Kidner T, Fleshner P (2009) Wound infection after ileostomy closure can be eliminated by circumferential subcuticular wound approximation. Dis Colon Rectum 52:469–474CrossRefPubMed

15.

Klink CD, Wünschmann M, Binnebösel M et al (2013) Influence of skin closure technique on surgical site infection after loop ileostomy reversal: retrospective cohort study. Int J Surg 11:1123–1125CrossRefPubMed

16.

17.

Dusch N, Goranova D, Herrle F, Niedergethmann M, Kienle P (2013) Randomized controlled trial: comparison of two surgical techniques for closing the wound following ileostomy closure: purse string vs direct suture. Colorectal Dis 15:1033–1040CrossRefPubMed

18.

Reid K, Pockney P, Pollitt T, Draganic B, Smith SR (2010) Randomized clinical trial of short-term outcomes following purse-string versus conventional closure of ileostomy wounds. Br J Surg 97:1511–1517CrossRefPubMed

19.

Camacho-Mauries D, Rodriguez J, Salgado-Nesme N, Vergara O, Gonzalez Q (2012) Randomized clinical trial that demonstrates the elimination of wound infection following pursestring versus conventional closure of ostomy wounds. (ASCRS Annual Meeting). Dis Colon Rectum 55:e114

20.

21.

22.

Chopra K, Gowda AU, Morrow C, Holton L 3rd, Singh DP (2016) The economic impact of closed-incision negative-pressure therapy in high-risk abdominal incisions: a cost-utility analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 137:1284–1289CrossRefPubMed

23.

O’Leary DP, Peirce C, Anglim B et al (2017) Prophylactic negative pressure dressing use in closed laparotomy wounds following abdominal operations: a randomized, controlled, open-label trial: the P.I.C.O. trial. Ann Surg 265(6):1082–1086CrossRefPubMed

Title: The effect of purse-string approximation versus linear approximation of ileostomy reversal wounds on morbidity rates and patient satisfaction: the 'STOMA' trial
Authors: D. P. O’Leary
M. Carter
D. Wijewardene
M. Burton
D. Waldron
E. Condon
J. C. Coffey
C. Peirce
Publication date: 01-11-2017
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Published in: Techniques in Coloproctology / Issue 11/2017
Print ISSN: 1123-6337
Electronic ISSN: 1128-045X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-017-1713-x

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

The effect of purse-string approximation versus linear approximation of ileostomy reversal wounds on morbidity rates and patient satisfaction: the 'STOMA' trial

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 11/2017

Robotic-assisted multivisceral resection for rectal cancer: short-term outcomes at a single center

Endoscopic placement of a covered stent to arrest bleeding from obstructing colorectal cancer

Permacol™ collagen paste for treating a rectovaginal fistula following anterior rectal prolapsectomy

The impact of the national bowel screening program in the Netherlands on detection and treatment of endoscopically unresectable benign polyps

Response to the correspondence “Preservation of vaginal elasticity is essential for avoiding mesh complications after prolapse surgery” by P Petros and P Richardson

Scanning electron microscope imaging of pilonidal disease