Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Meta-analysis and single-center experience on the protective effect of negative suction drains on wound healing after stoma reversal

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Colorectal Disease Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Compromised wound healing following stoma reversal is a frequent problem. The use of negative suction drainage for reduction of complications remains controversial.

Methods

The patient database of our center was reviewed for patients with ileostomy reversal between 2007 and 2017. Risk factors for wound complications were analyzed using multivariate regression analysis. Systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. Ultimately, results of this study were integrated into meta-analysis to assess the effect of drainage placement on wound healing.

Results

In our institutional analysis, a total of 406 patients with ileostomy reversal were included (n = 240 (59.1%) with drainage vs. n = 166 (40.8%) without drainage). In multivariate analysis, body mass index (BMI) was a risk factor for wound complications (odds ratio (95% CI) 1.06 (1.02–1.12)). Patients with drainage needed significantly fewer interventions than those without drainage (17.1% vs. 28.9%, p = 0.005). Placement of drainage significantly reduced the risk of wound complications even in the group with elevated BMI (odds ratio (95% CI) 0.462 (0.28–0.76), p = 0.003). Meta-analysis identified 6 studies with a total of 1180 patients eligible for further analysis (2 prospectively randomized trials; 4 retrospective cohort studies). Overall analysis revealed a significantly beneficial effect of wound drainage following ileostomy reversal (RR (95% CI) 0.47 (0.34, 0.66); p < 0.0001).

Conclusion

In our institutional analysis as well as meta-analysis, the use of subcutaneous suction drains was beneficial for prevention of wound healing complications following ostomy reversal. Drainage placement is especially valuable in high-risk situations such as in obese patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mrak K, Uranitsch S, Pedross F, Heuberger A, Klingler A, Jagoditsch M, Weihs D, Eberl T, Tschmelitsch J (2016) Diverting ileostomy versus no diversion after low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a prospective, randomized, multicenter trial. Surgery 159:1129–1139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Huser N, Michalski CW, Erkan M, Schuster T, Rosenberg R, Kleeff J, Friess H (2008) Systematic review and meta-analysis of the role of defunctioning stoma in low rectal cancer surgery. Ann Surg 248:52–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ulrich AB, Seiler C, Rahbari N, Weitz J, Buchler MW (2009) Diverting stoma after low anterior resection: more arguments in favor. Dis Colon Rectum 52:412–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bhama AR, Batool F, Collins SD, Ferraro J, Cleary RK (2017) Risk factors for postoperative complications following diverting loop ileostomy takedown. J Gastrointest Surg 21:2048–2055

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Schneider V, Lee LD, Stroux A, Buhr HJ, Ritz JP, Kreis ME, Lauscher JC (2016) Risk factors for reoperation after ileostomy reversal - results from a prospective cohort study. Int J Surg 36:233–239

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Mansfield SD, Jensen C, Phair AS, Kelly OT, Kelly SB (2008) Complications of loop ileostomy closure: a retrospective cohort analysis of 123 patients. World J Surg 32:2101–2106

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group (2010) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg 8:336–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, Initiative S (2007) The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet 370:1453–1457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kosins AM, Scholz T, Cetinkaya M, Evans GR (2013) Evidence-based value of subcutaneous surgical wound drainage: the largest systematic review and meta-analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 132:443–450

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Pan HD, Wang L, Peng YF, Li M, Yao YF, Zhao J, Zhan TC, Du CZ, Gu J (2015) Subcutaneous vacuum drains reduce surgical site infection after primary closure of defunctioning ileostomy. Int J Color Dis 30:977–982

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Chu DI, Schlieve CR, Colibaseanu DT, Simpson PJ, Wagie AE, Cima RR, Habermann EB (2015) Surgical site infections (SSIs) after stoma reversal (SR): risk factors, implications, and protective strategies. J Gastrointest Surg 19:327–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Mirbagheri N, Dark J, Skinner S (2013) Factors predicting stomal wound closure infection rates. Tech Coloproctol 17:215–220

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Thomson JP, Hawley PR (1972) Results of closure of loop transverse colostomies. Br Med J 3:459–462

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Lauscher JC, Schneider V, Lee LD, Stroux A, Buhr HJ, Kreis ME, Ritz JP (2016) Necessity of subcutaneous suction drains in ileostomy reversal (DRASTAR)-a randomized, controlled bi-centered trial. Langenbeck's Arch Surg 401:409–418

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Liang MK, Li LT, Avellaneda A, Moffett JM, Hicks SC, Awad SS (2013) Outcomes and predictors of incisional surgical site infection in stoma reversal. JAMA Surg 148:183–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. O’Leary DP, Carter M, Wijewardene D, Burton M, Waldron D, Condon E, Coffey JC, Peirce C (2017) The effect of purse-string approximation versus linear approximation of ileostomy reversal wounds on morbidity rates and patient satisfaction: the ‘STOMA’ trial. Tech Coloproctol 21:863–868

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 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 17:345–351

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Hajibandeh S, Hajibandeh S, Kennedy-Dalby A, Rehman S, Zadeh RA (2018) Purse-string skin closure versus linear skin closure techniques in stoma closure: a comprehensive meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis of randomised trials. Int J Color Dis 33:1319–1332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 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. Color Dis 15:1033–1040

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Khansa I, Khansa L, Meyerson J, Janis JE (2018) Optimal use of surgical drains: evidence-based strategies. Plast Reconstr Surg 141:1542–1549

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Klinikum rechts der Isar, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany

    Philipp-Alexander Neumann, Stefan Reischl, Felix Berg, Carsten Jäger, Helmut Friess, Daniel Reim & Güralp O. Ceyhan

  2. Department of General Surgery, HPB-Unit, School of Medicine, Acibadem Mehmet Ali Aydinlar University, Istanbul, Turkey

    Güralp O. Ceyhan

Authors
  1. Philipp-Alexander Neumann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stefan Reischl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Felix Berg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Carsten Jäger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Helmut Friess
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Daniel Reim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Güralp O. Ceyhan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Philipp-Alexander Neumann.

Ethics declarations

The study was approved by the ethical board of the Technical University of Munich (No. 207/18s).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Neumann, PA., Reischl, S., Berg, F. et al. Meta-analysis and single-center experience on the protective effect of negative suction drains on wound healing after stoma reversal. Int J Colorectal Dis 35, 403–411 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-019-03492-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-019-03492-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation