Clinical Outcomes of Purse-String Versus Linear Skin Closure After Stoma Reversal: A Retrospective Comparative Study

Öz

Background: This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of purse-string (PS) and linear skin closure (LS) techniques following stoma reversal. Materials and Methods: Patients who underwent stoma reversal between January 2020 and January 2025 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into PS and LS groups according to the skin closure technique used. Demographic characteristics, clinical variables, operative findings, and postoperative outcomes were compared between the groups. Results: A total of 209 patients were included, of whom 68 (32.5%) underwent PS closure and 141 (67.5%) underwent LS closure. The groups were comparable regarding age, sex, body mass index, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and comorbidity profile. ASA score distribution differed significantly between the groups (p=0.039). The distribution of colostomy locations was significantly higher in the LS group (p=0.026). Midline incision use (29.8% vs. 7.4%, p<0.001), drain placement (61.0% vs. 35.3%, p<0.001), and operative time (115.1±65.7 vs. 88.8±44.2 minutes, p=0.003) were significantly greater in the LS group. No significant differences were observed in wound healing time (p=0.340), length of hospital stay (p=0.815), overall morbidity (31.9% vs. 38.2%, p=0.366), reoperation rate (7.8% vs. 10.3%, p=0.547), or mortality (2.1% vs. 1.5%, p=1.000). Conclusions: PS and LS skin closure techniques provide comparable clinical outcomes following stoma reversal. Although operative time, midline incision use, and drain placement were higher in the LS group, postoperative outcomes did not differ significantly between the two techniques.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Stoma reversal
• Ileostomy
• Colostomy
• Purse-string closure
• Linear skin closure
• Surgical wound infection

Destekleyen Kurum

NO

Stoma Kapatılması Sonrası Kese Ağzı (Purse-String) ile Doğrusal Cilt Kapatmanın Klinik Sonuçları: Retrospektif Karşılaştırmalı Bir Çalışma

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmada, ostomi kapatılması sonrası uygulanan pürse-string (PS) ve lineer sütür (LS) cilt kapatma tekniklerinin klinik sonuçlarının karşılaştırılması amaçlandı. Gereç ve yöntem: Ocak 2020 ile Ocak 2025 tarihleri arasında ostomi kapatılması uygulanan hastaların verileri retrospektif olarak incelendi. Hastalar uygulanan cilt kapatma tekniğine göre PS ve LS gruplarına ayrıldı. Demografik özellikler, klinik veriler, operatif bulgular ve postoperatif sonuçlar karşılaştırıldı. Bulgular: Toplam 209 hasta çalışmaya dahil edildi. Bunların 68’ine (%32.5) PS, 141’ine (%67.5) LS uygulandı. Yaş, cinsiyet, vücut kitle indeksi, Charlson komorbidite indeksi ve komorbidite dağılımı açısından gruplar benzerdi. LS grubunda ASA skoru dağılımı farklılık göstermekteydi (p=0.039). Kolostomi lokalizasyonlarının dağılımı LS grubunda daha yüksekti (p=0.026). Orta hat insizyonu (%29.8 vs. %7.4, p<0.001), dren kullanımı (%61.0 vs. %35.3, p<0.001) ve ameliyat süresi (115.1±65.7 vs. 88.8±44.2 dakika, p=0.003) LS grubunda anlamlı olarak daha yüksekti. Yara iyileşme süresi (p=0.340), hastanede yatış süresi (p=0.815), morbidite (%31.9 vs. %38.2, p=0.366), reoperasyon (%7.8 vs. %10.3, p=0.547) ve mortalite (%2.1 vs. %1.5, p=1.000) açısından gruplar arasında anlamlı farklılık saptanmadı. Sonuç: PS ve LS cilt kapatma teknikleri ostomi kapatılmasında benzer klinik sonuçlar sağlamaktadır. LS grubunda operasyon süresi, orta hat insizyonu kullanımı ve dren yerleştirilmesi daha yüksek olmasına rağmen, postoperatif sonuçlar açısından iki yöntem arasında anlamlı farklılık bulunmamıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ostomi kapatılması
• Pürse-string kapatma
• Lineer cilt kapatılması
• Cerrahi alan enfeksiyonu
• İleostomi
• Kolostomi

Destekleyen Kurum

YOK

Kaynakça

1. Tan WS, Tang CL, Shi L, Eu KW. Metaanalysis of defunctioning stomas in low anterior resection for rectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2009;96(5):462-472. doi:10.1002/ bjs.6594.
2. Bains MS, Nar AS, Jabbal HS, Mishra A, Mishra A, Sharma P. A prospective study of 'circumferential purse-string approximation' vs. primary linear skin closure in stoma reversal. Pan Afr Med J. 2022;42:287. Published 2022 Aug 17. doi:10.11604/ pamj.2022.42.287.29213.
3. Banerjee A. Pursestring skin closure after stoma reversal. Dis Colon Rectum. 1997;40(8):993-994. doi:10.1007/ BF02051210.
4. Hsieh MC, Kuo LT, Chi CC, Huang WS, Chin CC. Pursestring Closure versus Conventional Primary Closure Following Stoma Reversal to Reduce Surgical Site Infection Rate: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Dis Colon Rectum. 2015;58(8):808-815. doi:10.1097/ DCR.0000000000000401.
5. Luo J, Liu D, Wu J, et al. Purse-string versus linear closure of the skin wound following stoma reversal: A meta-analysis with RCT and systematic review. Medicine (Baltimore). 2024;103(35):e39477. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000039477.
6. Liang MK, Li LT, Avellaneda A, Moffett JM, Hicks SC, Awad SS. Outcomes and predictors of incisional surgical site infection in stoma reversal. JAMA Surg. 2013;148(2):183-189. doi:10.1001/jamasurgery. 2013.411.
7. Sherman KL, Wexner SD. Considerations in Stoma Reversal. Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2017;30(3):172-177. doi:10.1055/s-0037-1598157.
8. Hackam DJ, Rotstein OD. Stoma closure and wound infection: an evaluation of risk factors. Can J Surg. 1995;38(2):144-148.

9. Rondelli F, Franco L, Balzarotti Canger RC, Ceccarelli G, Becattini C, Bugiantella W. Purse-string closure versus conventional primary closure of wound following stoma reversal: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Surg. 2018;52:208- 213. doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2018.02.027.
10. Hajibandeh S, Hajibandeh S, Maw A. Purse-string skin closure versus linear skin closure in people undergoing stoma reversal. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024;3(3):CD014763. Published 2024 Mar 12. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD014763.pub2.
11. Menegon Tasselli F, Pata F, Fuschillo G, et al. Circular (purse-string) vs primary skin closure following stoma closure: an upto- date systematic review and meta-analysis. Tech Coloproctol. 2025;29(1):93. Published 2025 Apr 5. doi:10.1007/s10151- 025-03135-1.
12. Li S, Zhou Z, Wang F, Li W, Liu C, Li L. Risk factors and incidence of surgical wound infection after stoma reversal: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2025;20(7):e0328344. Published 2025 Jul 16. doi:10.1371/journal. pone.0328344.
13. Alvandipour M, Gharedaghi B, Khodabakhsh H, Karami MY. Purse-String Versus Linear Conventional Skin Wound Closure of an Ileostomy: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Ann Coloproctol. 2016;32(4):144- 149. doi:10.3393/ac.2016.32.4.144.
14. Gachabayov M, Lee H, Chudner A, Dyatlov A, Zhang N, Bergamaschi R. Purse-string vs. linear skin closure at loop ileostomy reversal: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Tech Coloproctol. 2019;23(3):207- 220. doi:10.1007/s10151-019-01952-9.
15. Yamamoto M, Tanaka K, Masubuchi S, et al. Risk factors for surgical site infection after stoma closure comparison between pursestring wound closure and conventional linear wound closure: Propensity score matching analysis. Am J Surg. 2018;215(1):58-61. doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg. 2017.09.031.