Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31875261›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of colorectal disease2020

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

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

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of colorectal disease, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 2DWorld journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2021
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Philipp-Alexander NeumannDepartment of Surgery, Klinikum rechts der Isar, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany. Philipp-Alexander.Neumann@tum.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8361-3934
Stefan ReischlDepartment of Surgery, Klinikum rechts der Isar, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany.
Felix BergDepartment of Surgery, Klinikum rechts der Isar, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany.
Carsten JägerDepartment of Surgery, Klinikum rechts der Isar, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany.
Helmut FriessDepartment of Surgery, Klinikum rechts der Isar, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany.
Daniel ReimDepartment of Surgery, Klinikum rechts der Isar, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany.
Güralp O CeyhanDepartment of Surgery, Klinikum rechts der Isar, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany.
TUM Klinikum · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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

methodsThe 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.

resultsIn 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).

conclusionIn 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.

Indexed as

Wound HealingAnastomotic LeakBody Mass IndexHumansIleostomyPostoperative ComplicationsReoperationRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsSuctionSurgical StomasSurgical Wound InfectionColorectal surgeryIleostomyNegative suction drainage

Identifiers

PMID31875261
OpenAlexW2995584812

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.