A beneficial effect of purse-string skin closure after ileostomy takedown: a retrospective cohort study

Purse-string skin closure versus linear skin closure techniques in stoma closure: a comprehensive meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis of randomised trials

OBJECTIVES

To compare purse-string skin closure (PSC) and linear skin closure (LSC) techniques in patients undergoing stoma closure METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of literature and meta-analysis of outcomes according to PRISMA statement standards to compare PSC and LSC techniques in stoma closure. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was performed to assess the possibility of type I or II error and compute the information size required for conclusive meta-analysis.

RESULTS

We identified six randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and eight observational studies, enrolling a total of 1102 patients. The included populations in the PSC and LSC groups were comparable in terms of baseline characteristics. The risk of surgical site infection (SSI) was significantly lower in the PSC group (OR 0.10; 95% CI 0.06, 0.18; P < 0.00001). There was no difference between the two groups in terms of operative time (MD 1.80; 95% CI - 1.35, 4.96; P = 0.26), anastomotic leak (OR 0.73; 95% CI 0.21, 2.48; P = 0.61), incisional hernia (OR 0.59; 95% CI 0.25, 1.37; P = 0.22), small bowel obstruction (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.50, 1.86; P = 0.91), and length of hospital stay (MD - 0.04; 95% CI - 0.51, 0.42; P = 0.86). Patient satisfaction was higher in the PSC group. TSA showed that the risk of type 1 error was minimal and meta-analysis was conclusive.

CONCLUSIONS

PSC is associated with significantly lower risk of SSI and better patient satisfaction compared with LSC in closure of stomas and should be the closure technique of choice. The current available evidence is robust and conclusive highlighting that the results of the current study should be incorporated into clinical practice without a need for further trial data.

Ileostomy reversal with handsewn techniques. Short-term outcomes in a teaching hospital

INTRODUCTION

Fecal diversion is considered an effective procedure to protect bowel anastomosis at high risk for leak. Some concerns exist regarding the risk for a significant morbidity associated to ileostomy creation itself and moreover to its closure. Surgical expertise and closure techniques are considered potential factors influencing morbidity. Aim of the study is to present a single-institution experience with ileostomy closures, in a teaching hospital, whereas ileostomy reversal is mainly performed by young residents.

METHODS

A prospective database was investigated to extract data of patients who underwent loop ileostomy closure between January 2005 and December 2014. Ileostomy reversion was always realized in a handsewn fashion, performing either a direct closure (DC) or a resection plus end-to-end anastomosis (EEA). Postoperative morbidity was graded according to Clavien-Dindo classification. Outcomes after DC and EEA were compared by Fisher's exact test and Wilcoxon rank-sum test.

RESULTS

Two hundred ninety-eight patients were included. Ileostomy reversal was performed by EEA in 236 patients (79.19 %) and by DC in 62 patients (20.81 %). Surgery was performed with a peristomal access in 296 cases (99.33 %). Incidence of anastomotic leak was 0.67 % (2/298). Overall reoperation rate was 0.34 % (1/298). Short-term overall morbidity rate was 20.47 %; but major complications (≥ grade III) occurred in only one patient (0.34 %). Mortality was nil. No significant differences in postoperative morbidity were found between the DC and EEA group.

CONCLUSION

Loop ileostomy reversal is a safe procedure, associated to a low major morbidity and excellent results, even if performed with a handsewn technique by supervised trainee surgeons.