Advertisement

International Journal of Colorectal Disease

, Volume 33, Issue 7, pp 973–977 | Cite as

Purse-string closure technique reduces the incidence of incisional hernias following the reversal of temporary ileostomy

  • Mazen A. Juratli
  • Nour-Eldin A. Nour-Eldin
  • Hans Ackermann
  • Nils Habbe
  • Sabine Hannes
  • Wolf O. Bechstein
  • Guido Woeste
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

The incidence of incisional hernia (IH) at ileostomy closure site has not been sufficiently evaluated. Temporary loop ileostomy is routinely used in patients after low anterior resection for rectal cancer. The goal of this study was to compare the IH rates of standard suture skin closure and purse-string skin closure techniques.

Patients and methods

Patients undergoing ileostomy reversal and follow-up CT scan at the University Hospital Frankfurt between January 2009 and December 2015 were retrospectively analyzed regarding IH and associated risk factors. Patients received either direct stitch skin closure (group DC) or purse-string skin closure (group PS).

Results

In total, 111 patients underwent ileostomy reversal in the aforementioned period. In 88 patients, a CT scan was performed 12–24 months after ileostomy reversal for cancer follow-up. Median follow-up was 12 months. Median time interval between ileostoma formation and closure was 12 (± 4 SD) weeks. In 19 of 88 patients (21.5%), an IH was detected. The incidence of IH detected by CT scan was significantly lower in the PS group (n = 7, 12.9%) compared to the DC group (n = 12, 35.2%, p = 0.017).

Conclusions

This retrospective study shows an advantage of the purse-string skin closure technique in ileostomy reversals. The use of this technique for skin closure following ileostomy reversals is recommended to reduce the IH rates. Randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Keywords

Ileostoma closure Incisional hernia Purse-string skin closure Rectal cancer Wound infection 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

  1. 1.
    Enker WE (1999) Mesorectal excision (TME) in the operative treatment of rectal cancer. Int J Surg Investig 1(3):253–255.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kwiatt M, Kawata M (2013) Avoidance and management of stomal complications. Clin Colon Rectal Surg Thieme Medical Publishers 26(2):112–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bhangu A, Fletcher L, Kingdon S, Smith E, Nepogodiev D, Janjua U (2012) A clinical and radiological assessment of incisional hernias following closure of temporary stomas. Surgeon Elsevier 10(6):321–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    De Keersmaecker G, Beckers R, Heindryckx E, Kyle-Leinhase I, Pletinckx P, Claeys D et al (2016) Retrospective observational study on the incidence of incisional hernias after reversal of a temporary diverting ileostomy following rectal carcinoma resection with follow-up CT scans. Hernia 20(2):271–277.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Liu DSH, Banham E, Yellapu S (2013) Prophylactic mesh reinforcement reduces stomal site incisional hernia after ileostomy closure. World J Surg 37(9):2039–2045.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Banerjee A (1997) Pursestring skin closure after stoma reversal. Dis Colon Rectum 40(8):993–994CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Habbe N, Hannes S, Liese J, Woeste G, Bechstein WO, Strey C (2014) The use of purse-string skin closure in loop ileostomy reversals leads to lower wound infection rates—a single high-volume centre experience. Int J Color Dis 29(6):709–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mirbagheri N, Dark J, Skinner S (2013) Factors predicting stomal wound closure infection rates. Tech Coloproctol 17(2):215–220.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kaidar-Person O, Person B, Wexner SD (2005) Complications of construction and closure of temporary loop ileostomy. J Am Coll Surg 201(5):759–773.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bhangu A, Nepogodiev D, Futaba K, Collaborative WMR (2012) Systematic review and meta-analysis of the incidence of incisional hernia at the site of stoma closure. World J Surg 36(5):973–983.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Muysoms FE, Antoniou SA, Bury K, Campanelli G, Conze J, Cuccurullo D, de Beaux AC, Deerenberg EB, East B, Fortelny RH, Gillion JF, Henriksen NA, Israelsson L, Jairam A, Jänes A, Jeekel J, López-Cano M, Miserez M, Morales-Conde S, Sanders DL, Simons MP, Śmietański M, Venclauskas L, Berrevoet F, European Hernia Society (2015) European Hernia Society guidelines on the closure of abdominal wall incisions. Hernia 19(1):1–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Guzman-Valdivia G (2008) Incisional hernia at the site of a stoma. Hernia 12(5):471–474. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cingi A, Solmaz A, Attaallah W, Aslan A, Aktan AO (2008) Enterostomy closure site hernias: a clinical and ultrasonographic evaluation. Hernia 12(4):401–405.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schreinemacher MHF, Vijgen GHEJ, Dagnelie PC, Bloemen JG, Huizinga BF, Bouvy ND (2011) Incisional hernias in temporary stoma wounds: a cohort study. Arch Surg 146(1):94–99.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mazen A. Juratli
    • 1
  • Nour-Eldin A. Nour-Eldin
    • 2
    • 3
  • Hans Ackermann
    • 4
  • Nils Habbe
    • 1
  • Sabine Hannes
    • 1
  • Wolf O. Bechstein
    • 1
  • Guido Woeste
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of General and Visceral SurgeryFrankfurt University HospitalFrankfurt am MainGermany
  2. 2.Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional RadiologyFrankfurt University HospitalFrankfurt am MainGermany
  3. 3.Department of Diagnostic and Interventional RadiologyCairo University HospitalCairoEgypt
  4. 4.Department of Biomedical StatisticsFrankfurt University HospitalFrankfurt am MainGermany

Personalised recommendations