Pursestring Closure versus Conventional Primary Closure Following Stoma Reversal to Reduce Surgical Site Infection Rate. Issue 8 (August 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Hsieh, Meng-Chiao; Kuo, Liang-Tseng; Chi, Ching-Chi; Huang, Wen-Shih; Chin, Chih-Chien
• Is Part Of: Diseases of the colon & rectum. Volume 58:Issue 8(2015:Aug.)
• Publication Date: 2015-08
• Subjects: Colon (Anatomy) -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Rectum -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Colonic Diseases -- Periodicals; Colorectal Surgery -- Periodicals; 616.34
• DOI: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000000401
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0012-3706

Abstract

<abstract> <title> <x xml:space="preserve">Abstract</x> </title> <sec> <title>BACKGROUND:</title> <p>Stoma reversal is a surgical procedure commonly used following temporary defunctioning stoma surgery. Surgical site infection is one of the most common postoperative morbidities. A few skin closure methods have been developed to decrease surgical site infection. However, the optimal skin closure method is still in debate.</p> </sec> <sec> <title>OBJECTIVE:</title> <p>The aim of this study was to compare the surgical site infection rate and other postoperative outcomes between the pursestring closure and conventional primary closure techniques.</p> </sec> <sec> <title>DATA SOURCES:</title> <p>We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for relevant trials.</p> </sec> <sec> <title>STUDY SELECTION:</title> <p>We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that compared the surgical outcomes following pursestring closure and conventional primary closure techniques.</p> </sec> <sec> <title>INTERVENTION:</title> <p>We conducted the meta-analysis by using the random-effects model.</p> </sec> <sec> <title>MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:</title> <p>The primary outcome of interest was surgical site infection following stoma reversal within 30 days after operation.</p> </sec> <sec> <title>RESULTS:</title> <p>This meta-analysis included 4 randomized controlled trials with a total of 319 participants (162 in the pursestring closure group and 157 in the conventional primary closure group). Compared with the conventional primary closure group, the pursestring closure group had a significant decrease in surgical site infection (risk difference, –0.25; 95% CI, –0.36 to –0.15; <italic>p</italic> < 0.00001; number needed to treat = 4) and higher satisfaction with cosmetic outcomes (standard mean difference, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.13–1.27; <italic>p</italic> = 0.02). No other significant differences in operative time, length of hospital stay, and wound healing time were found between the 2 groups.</p> </sec> <sec> <title>LIMITATIONS:</title> <p>This study was limited to the lack of double blinding and long-term follow-up in the included trials.</p> </sec> <sec> <title>CONCLUSIONS:</title> <p>Pursestring closure has significantly fewer surgical site infections and achieves better cosmetic outcomes following stoma reversal than conventional primary closure.</p> </sec> </abstract>