A combination of subcuticular sutures and subcutaneous closed-suction drainage reduces the risk of incisional surgical site infection in loop ileostomy closure

Fukuoka, Kohei; Koyama, Fumikazu; Kuge, Hiroyuki; Obara, Shinsaku; Nakamoto, Takayuki; Iwasa, Yosuke; Takei, Yoshiyuki; Matsumoto, Yayoi; Sadamitsu, Tomomi; Sho, Masayuki

doi:10.1007/s00595-020-02128-x

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Surgeons have attempted to implement effective techniques to prevent incisional SSI. For example, purse-string skin closure is used as a substitute for conventional linear skin closure[ 3 ], and subcutaneous closedsuction drainage or negative-pressure technology (NPT) has been introduced to achieve adequate drainage[ 4 ]. These are valid techniques but have some limitations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Micro-power negative pressure wound technique reduces risk of incision infection following loop ileostomy closure

Xu,

Bai,

Shan

et al. 2024

World J Gastrointest Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND Prophylactic loop ileostomy is an effective way to reduce the clinical severity of anastomotic leakage following radical resection of rectal cancer. Incisional surgical site infection (SSI) is a common complication after ileostomy closure. AIM To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the micro-power negative pressure wound technique (MPNPWT) in preventing incisional SSI. METHODS This was a prospective, randomized controlled clinical trial conducted at a single center. A total of 101 consecutive patients who underwent ileostomy closure after rectal cancer surgery with a prophylactic ileostomy were enrolled from January 2019 to December 2021. Patients were randomly allocated into an MPNPWT group and a control group. The MPNPWT group underwent intermittent suturing of the surgical incision with 2-0 Prolene and was covered with a micro-power negative pressure dressing. The surgical outcomes were compared between the MPNPWT (n = 50) and control (n = 51) groups. Risk factors for incisional SSI were identified using logistic regression. RESULTS There were no differences in baseline characteristics between the MPNPWT (n = 50) and control groups (n = 51). The incisional SSI rate was significantly higher in the control group than in the MPNPWT group (15.7% vs 2.0%, P = 0.031). However, MPNPWT did not affect other surgical outcomes, including intra-abdominal complications, operative time, and blood loss. Postoperative hospital stay length and hospitalization costs did not differ significantly between the two groups (P = 0.069 and 0.843, respectively). None of the patients experienced adverse effects of MPNPWT, including skin allergy, dermatitis, and pain. MPNPWT also helped heal the infected incision. Our study indicated that MPNPWT was an independent protective factor [odds ratio (OR) = 0.005, P = 0.025)] and diabetes was a risk factor (OR = 26.575, P = 0.029) for incisional SSI. CONCLUSION MPNPWT is an effective and safe way to prevent incisional SSI after loop ileostomy closure.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%