ArticleCurrent health sciences journal
Comparison of Running Versus Interrupted Sutures for Fascial Closure in Ileostomy Takedown.
Article in Current health sciences journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Figure-of-eights vs running suture for fascial closure of large ventral hernias: do figure-of-eights induce ischemia?Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Temporary loop ileostomies are common after colorectal cancer surgery to reduce anastomotic leak severity. However, ileostomy takedown carries risks like surgical site infections (SSIs) and incisional hernias. The optimal fascial closure technique during takedown remains debated. This study compared these techniques regarding postoperative complications. This retrospective study analyzed data from 69 patients undergoing scheduled loop ileostomy closure between 2016-2020 at two Romanian surgical departments. Data collected included demographics, clinical variables (ASA score, comorbidities), surgical details (suture type, closure time, skin closure type), and follow-up data including CT assessments for hernia detection. The cohort included 69 patients (mean age 63, 64% male). Fascial closure was used in 17 (24.7%) and interrupted in 52 (75.4%) patients. Running sutures were significantly faster (mean 19 vs. 22 min, p=0.028). Overall SSI rate was 21.7%. Ileostomy site incisional hernias occurred in 13 patients (18.6%) after a mean follow-up of 30.7 months. No statistically significant difference in hernia rates was found between running (3/17) and interrupted (10/52) suture groups (p=1). Significant risk factors for hernia development included longer follow-up (OR=0.87, p=.025), BMI≥30 (OR=176, p=.009), and Clavien-Dindo grade 3 postoperative complications (OR=112, p=.033). While running sutures offer faster fascial closure, this study found no significant difference in ileostomy site incisional hernia rates between running and interrupted techniques. Patient factors like BMI ≥30 and severe postoperative complications are significant predictors of hernia formation. Careful technique is crucial, but primary closure without mesh remains standard.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.