Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38676785›Full record

Trial reportLangenbeck's archives of surgery2024

Comparison of purse-string technique vs linear suture for skin closure after ileostomy reversal. A randomized controlled trial.

Filippo Carannante, Gianluca Costa, Valentina Miacci, Gianfranco Bianco, Gianluca Masciana, Sara Lauricella, Marco Caricato, Gabriella Teresa Capolupo

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Filippo CarannanteColorectal Surgery Clinical and Research Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico Di Roma, University Campus Bio-Medico, Via Àlvaro del Portillo 200, 00128, Rome, Italy. f.carannante@policlinicocampus.it.
Gianluca CostaColorectal Surgery Clinical and Research Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico Di Roma, University Campus Bio-Medico, Via Àlvaro del Portillo 200, 00128, Rome, Italy.
Valentina MiacciColorectal Surgery Clinical and Research Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico Di Roma, University Campus Bio-Medico, Via Àlvaro del Portillo 200, 00128, Rome, Italy.
Gianfranco BiancoColorectal Surgery Clinical and Research Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico Di Roma, University Campus Bio-Medico, Via Àlvaro del Portillo 200, 00128, Rome, Italy.
Gianluca MascianaColorectal Surgery Clinical and Research Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico Di Roma, University Campus Bio-Medico, Via Àlvaro del Portillo 200, 00128, Rome, Italy.
Sara LauricellaTumori Ereditari Dell'Apparato Digerente, Chirurgia Generale Oncologica 2 - Colon-Retto, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Dei Tumori, Via Venezian 1, 20133, Milano, Italy.
Marco CaricatoColorectal Surgery Clinical and Research Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico Di Roma, University Campus Bio-Medico, Via Àlvaro del Portillo 200, 00128, Rome, Italy.
Gabriella Teresa CapolupoColorectal Surgery Clinical and Research Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico Di Roma, University Campus Bio-Medico, Via Àlvaro del Portillo 200, 00128, Rome, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProtective stoma after rectal surgery has been associated with important complications. The most common is surgical site infection (SSI) high rates after stoma reversal reported in literature. Our study compared the rate of SSI of two skin closure techniques, linear closure, and purse string closure.

methodsWe carried out a single center, prospective, randomized controlled trial in the Department of Colorectal Surgery of Fondazione Policlinico Campus Bio-Medico of Rome between January 2018 through December 2021, to compare LC vs PS closure of ileostomy sites.

resultsA total of 117 patients (53.84% male) with a mean age of 65.68 ± 14.33 years were finally evaluated in the study. 58 patients were included in the PS group and 59 patients in the LC one. There was a marked difference in the SSI rate between the two arms of the study: 3 of 58 patients in the purse-string arm versus 11 of 59 in the control arm (p = 0.043). The outcome of cosmesis was also higher in PS, with a statistical significance (mean ± DS 4,01 ± 0,73 for PS group vs mean ± DS 2,38 ± 0,72 for LC group, p < 0,001).

conclusionOur study demonstrated that the PS technique had a significantly lower incidence of stoma site SSI compared with LC technique. Our findings are in line with other randomized studies and suggest that PS closure could be considered as standard of care for wound closure after ileostomy reversal.

Indexed as

IleostomySurgical Wound InfectionSuture TechniquesAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesReoperationWound Closure TechniquesIleostomy closureIleostomy reversalLinear closurePurse string sutureSurgical site infection

Identifiers

PMID38676785

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.