Skip to main content
Top
Published in: World Journal of Surgery 9/2012

01-09-2012

Peritoneofascial Suture Method for Facilitating Loop Ileostomy Mobilization

Authors: Sang-hun Jung, Jae-hwang Kim

Published in: World Journal of Surgery | Issue 9/2012

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Ileostomy closure is a minor procedure and is performed through a small peristomal incision. However, a hard adhesion increases the technical difficulty. A peritoneofascial suture (PFS) will reduce the adhesion layers of the abdominal wall. This study was performed to evaluate whether the PFS method may decrease the extent of adhesions between the bowel and the abdominal wall opening and facilitate ileostomy mobilization.

Methods

Forty-two patients (24 males and 18 females) with a mean age of 57 years (range = 31–80 years) and who were undergoing ileostomy closure were enrolled. The PFS group and the conventional group had 18 and 24 patients, respectively. The intraoperative findings such as degree of adhesion, mobilization time, and associated bowel injury were analyzed.

Results

The thickness of the abdominal wall and the rectus abdominis was similar in both groups. The overall operation time was shorter in the PFS group than in the conventional group (50.9 vs. 80.4 min, respectively, p = 0.001). The ileostomy mobilization time was also shorter in the PFS group than in the conventional group (18.9 vs. 44.7 min, respectively, p < 0.001). The procedure was technically easier in the PFS group more frequently than in the conventional group (77.8 % vs. 31.6 %, respectively, p = 0.013). Bowel injury during mobilization was more common in the conventional group than in the PFS group (50.0 % vs. 16.7 %, respectively, p = 0.053).

Conclusions

The peritoneofascial suture method is a simple procedure, and it may facilitate ileostomy mobilization by decreasing adhesion layers. To confirm the technical advantage of this method a randomized study will be needed.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Karanjia ND, Corder AP, Holdsworth PJ et al (1991) Risk of peritonitis and fatal septicaemia and the need to defunction the low anastomosis. Br J Surg 78(2):196–198PubMedCrossRef Karanjia ND, Corder AP, Holdsworth PJ et al (1991) Risk of peritonitis and fatal septicaemia and the need to defunction the low anastomosis. Br J Surg 78(2):196–198PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Wong KS, Remzi FH, Gorgun E et al (2005) Loop ileostomy closure after restorative proctocolectomy: outcome in 1,504 patients. Dis Colon Rectum 48(2):243–250PubMedCrossRef Wong KS, Remzi FH, Gorgun E et al (2005) Loop ileostomy closure after restorative proctocolectomy: outcome in 1,504 patients. Dis Colon Rectum 48(2):243–250PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Phang PT, Hain JM, Perez-Ramirez JJ et al (1999) Techniques and complications of ileostomy takedown. Am J Surg 177(6):463–466PubMedCrossRef Phang PT, Hain JM, Perez-Ramirez JJ et al (1999) Techniques and complications of ileostomy takedown. Am J Surg 177(6):463–466PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Tang CL, Seow-Choen F, Fook-Chong S et al (2003) Bioresorbable adhesion barrier facilitates early closure of the defunctioning ileostomy after rectal excision: a prospective, randomized trial. Dis Colon Rectum 46(9):1200–1207PubMedCrossRef Tang CL, Seow-Choen F, Fook-Chong S et al (2003) Bioresorbable adhesion barrier facilitates early closure of the defunctioning ileostomy after rectal excision: a prospective, randomized trial. Dis Colon Rectum 46(9):1200–1207PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Cohen Z, Senagore AJ, Dayton MT et al (2005) Prevention of postoperative abdominal adhesions by a novel, glycerol/sodium hyaluronate/carboxymethylcellulose-based bioresorbable membrane: a prospective, randomized, evaluator-blinded multicenter study. Dis Colon Rectum 48(6):1130–1139PubMedCrossRef Cohen Z, Senagore AJ, Dayton MT et al (2005) Prevention of postoperative abdominal adhesions by a novel, glycerol/sodium hyaluronate/carboxymethylcellulose-based bioresorbable membrane: a prospective, randomized, evaluator-blinded multicenter study. Dis Colon Rectum 48(6):1130–1139PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Tjandra JJ, Chan MK (2008) A sprayable hydrogel adhesion barrier facilitates closure of defunctioning loop ileostomy: a randomized trial. Dis Colon Rectum 51(6):956–960PubMedCrossRef Tjandra JJ, Chan MK (2008) A sprayable hydrogel adhesion barrier facilitates closure of defunctioning loop ileostomy: a randomized trial. Dis Colon Rectum 51(6):956–960PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Maeda K, Maruta M, Utsumi T et al (2003) Pathophysiology and prevention of loop stomal prolapse in the transverse colon. Tech Coloproctol 7(2):108–111PubMedCrossRef Maeda K, Maruta M, Utsumi T et al (2003) Pathophysiology and prevention of loop stomal prolapse in the transverse colon. Tech Coloproctol 7(2):108–111PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference van de Pavoordt HD, Fazio VW, Jagelman DG et al (1987) The outcome of loop ileostomy closure in 293 cases. Int J Colorectal Dis 2(4):214–217PubMedCrossRef van de Pavoordt HD, Fazio VW, Jagelman DG et al (1987) The outcome of loop ileostomy closure in 293 cases. Int J Colorectal Dis 2(4):214–217PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Kaidar-Person O, Person B, Wexner SD (2005) Complications of construction and closure of temporary loop ileostomy. J Am Coll Surg 201(5):759–773PubMedCrossRef Kaidar-Person O, Person B, Wexner SD (2005) Complications of construction and closure of temporary loop ileostomy. J Am Coll Surg 201(5):759–773PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Williams LA, Sagar PM, Finan PJ et al (2008) The outcome of loop ileostomy closure: a prospective study. Colorectal Dis 10(5):460–464PubMedCrossRef Williams LA, Sagar PM, Finan PJ et al (2008) The outcome of loop ileostomy closure: a prospective study. Colorectal Dis 10(5):460–464PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Perez RO, Habr-Gama A, Seid VE et al (2006) Loop ileostomy morbidity: timing of closure matters. Dis Colon Rectum 49(10):1539–1545PubMedCrossRef Perez RO, Habr-Gama A, Seid VE et al (2006) Loop ileostomy morbidity: timing of closure matters. Dis Colon Rectum 49(10):1539–1545PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Carlsen E, Bergan AB (1999) Loop ileostomy: technical aspects and complications. Eur J Surg 165(2):140–143 (discussion 144)PubMedCrossRef Carlsen E, Bergan AB (1999) Loop ileostomy: technical aspects and complications. Eur J Surg 165(2):140–143 (discussion 144)PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Raftery AT (1979) Regeneration of peritoneum: a fibrinolytic study. J Anat 129(Pt 3):659–664PubMed Raftery AT (1979) Regeneration of peritoneum: a fibrinolytic study. J Anat 129(Pt 3):659–664PubMed
15.
go back to reference Milanchi S, Nasseri Y, Kidner T et al (2009) Wound infection after ileostomy closure can be eliminated by circumferential subcuticular wound approximation. Dis Colon Rectum 52(3):469–474PubMedCrossRef Milanchi S, Nasseri Y, Kidner T et al (2009) Wound infection after ileostomy closure can be eliminated by circumferential subcuticular wound approximation. Dis Colon Rectum 52(3):469–474PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Lahat G, Tulchinsky H, Goldman G et al (2005) Wound infection after ileostomy closure: a prospective randomized study comparing primary vs. delayed primary closure techniques. Tech Coloproctol 9(3):206–208PubMedCrossRef Lahat G, Tulchinsky H, Goldman G et al (2005) Wound infection after ileostomy closure: a prospective randomized study comparing primary vs. delayed primary closure techniques. Tech Coloproctol 9(3):206–208PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Peritoneofascial Suture Method for Facilitating Loop Ileostomy Mobilization
Authors
Sang-hun Jung
Jae-hwang Kim
Publication date
01-09-2012
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
World Journal of Surgery / Issue 9/2012
Print ISSN: 0364-2313
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2323
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-012-1627-8

Other articles of this Issue 9/2012

World Journal of Surgery 9/2012 Go to the issue