Application of modified two-stitch continuous suture method in single-lumen ileostomy

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-0793.2023.04.008

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective

To explore the application value of modified two-stitch continuous suture method in single-lumen ileostomy.

Methods

A total of 92 patients who underwent single-lumen ileostomy were retrospectively collected between January 2021 to August 2022 in Zhujiang Hospital of Southern Medical University. According to the different ileostomy methods, they were divided into modified two-stitch continuous suture ileostomy group (modified two-stitch group, 32 cases) and traditional ileostomy group (60 cases). For modified two-stitch continuous suture ileostomy, the ileostomy was made by continuous suture method with barbed suture. The differences of postoperative ostomy-related complications and operation time were compared between the two groups.

Results

There were no significant differences in baseline data between the two groups. The operation time of modified two-stitch group was shorter than that of traditional ileostomy group [(14.3±1.1) min vs (25.1±2.4) min, t=24.332, P<0.001]. The incidence of mucocutaneous separation and dermatitis in the modified two-stitch group were lower than those of the traditional ileostomy group (6.3% vs 31.7%, χ²=7.653, P=0.006; 3.1% vs 28.3%, χ²=8.427, P=0.004). While the incidences of parastomal hernia, stoma prolapse, stoma rebound and postoperative VAS scores in the two groups were similar.

Conclusion

Compared with traditional ileostomy, the modified two-stitch continuous suture ileostomy can significantly shorten the operation time, and has the advantages of simple operation, beautiful stoma and reduced postoperative complications related to the ostomy.

Key words: Barbed sutures, Ileostomy, Continuous suture, Two-stitch method, Technique of suture

Qingnan Lan, Jinlong Yu, Jie Yu, Shouhua He, Qining Weng, Guizhi Luo, Qi Zou, Zhaowei Zou. Application of modified two-stitch continuous suture method in single-lumen ileostomy[J]. Chinese Archives of General Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2023, 17(04): 278-281.

/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://zhptwkxwx.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-0793.2023.04.008

https://zhptwkxwx.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/Y2023/V17/I04/278

Figures/Tables 3

References 16

[1]	Rivet EB. Ostomy management: A model of interdisciplinary care[J]. Surg Clin North Am, 2019, 99(5): 885-898.
[2]	Ayaz-Alkaya S. Overview of psychosocial problems in individuals with stoma: A review of literature[J]. Int Wound J, 2019, 16(1): 243-249.
[3]	Wu X, Lin G, Qiu H, et al. Loop ostomy following laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy[J]. Eur J Med Res, 2018, 23(1): 24.
[4]	邱小原, 李昀昊, 林国乐, 等. 直肠癌新辅助放化疗后根治术行保护性横结肠造口与回肠造口对吻合口漏预防的相关研究[J]. 中华胃肠外科杂志, 2021, 24(6): 523-529.
[5]	中国医师协会肛肠医师分会造口专业委员会, 中国医师协会肛肠医师分会, 中华医学会外科学分会结直肠外科学组, 等. 中低位直肠癌手术预防性肠造口中国专家共识(2022版)[J]. 中华胃肠外科杂志, 2022, 25(6): 471-478.
[6]	Murken DR, Bleier J. Ostomy-related complications[J]. Clin Colon Rectal Surg, 2019, 32(3): 176-182.
[7]	Byrne M, Aly A. The surgical suture[J]. Aesthet Surg J, 2019, 39(Suppl_2): S67-S72.
[8]	Lee S, Kee T, Jung MY, et al. A comparison of barbed continuous suture versus conventional interrupted suture for fascial closure in total hip arthroplasty[J]. Sci Rep, 2022, 12(1): 3942.
[9]	López CC, Ríos J, González Y, et al. Barbed suture versus conventional suture for vaginal cuff closure in total laparoscopic hysterectomy: randomized controlled clinical trial[J]. J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 2019, 26(6): 1104-1109.
[10]	Ruiz-Tovar J, Llavero C, Jimenez-Fuertes M, et al. Incisional surgical site infection after abdominal fascial closure with triclosan-coated barbed suture vs triclosan-coated polydioxanone loop suture vs polydioxanone loop suture in emergent abdominal surgery: A randomized clinical trial[J]. J Am Coll Surg, 2020, 230(5): 766-774.
[11]	蓝青楠, 俞金龙, 余捷, 等. 两针法连续缝合在回肠单腔造口术中的应用[J]. 中华胃肠外科杂志, 2022, 25(11): 1020-1024.
[12]	Karcioglu O, Topacoglu H, Dikme O, et al. A systematic review of the pain scales in adults: which to use?[J]. Am J Emerg Med, 2018, 36(4): 707-714.
[13]	Whitehead A, Cataldo PA. Technical considerations in stoma creation[J]. Clin Colon Rectal Surg, 2017, 30(3): 162-171.
[14]	中华医学会外科学分会. 腹腔镜结直肠外科手术缝合技术与缝合材料选择中国专家共识（2021版）[J]. 中国实用外科杂志, 2021, 41(5): 504-511.
[15]	江志鹏, 周太成, 曾兵, 等. 一种切口疝缝合的创新技术——"立体"缝合[J]. 中国实用外科杂志, 2021, 41(2): 160-163.
[16]	赵玉沛. 普通外科缝合技术和缝线的发展历史现状和展望[J]. 中国实用外科杂志, 2008, 28(10): 789-792.

组别	例数	性别（男/女，例）	年龄（岁）	BMI（kg/m²）	白蛋白（g/L）	血红蛋白(g/L)	手术时间（min）
传统造口组	60	27/33	57.2±12.7	23.9±2.8	38.3±4.3	111.4±25.4	25.1±2.4
改良两针法组	32	18/14	57.4±10.3	23.2±2.8	37.4±4.8	103.1±28.3	14.3±1.1
统计值		1.057^a	-0.078	1.201	0.921	1.431	24.332
P值		0.304	0.938	0.233	0.360	0.156	<0.001

组别	例数	性别（男/女，例）	年龄（岁）	BMI（kg/m²）	白蛋白（g/L）	血红蛋白(g/L)	手术时间（min）
传统造口组	60	27/33	57.2±12.7	23.9±2.8	38.3±4.3	111.4±25.4	25.1±2.4
改良两针法组	32	18/14	57.4±10.3	23.2±2.8	37.4±4.8	103.1±28.3	14.3±1.1
统计值		1.057^a	-0.078	1.201	0.921	1.431	24.332
P值		0.304	0.938	0.233	0.360	0.156	<0.001

组别	例数	造口皮肤黏膜分离	周围皮炎	造口回缩	造口脱垂	造口旁疝	VAS评分（±s）
传统造口组	60	19(31.7)	17(28.3)	11(18.3)	13(21.7)	9(15.0)	1.1±1.1
改良两针法组	32	2(6.2)	1(3.1)	1(3.1)	3(9.4)	3(9.4)	0.9±1.1
统计值		χ²=7.653	χ²=8.427	-	χ²=2.195	-	Z=-1.140
P值		0.006^a	0.004^a	0.051^b	0.138^a	0.532^b	0.254

组别	例数	造口皮肤黏膜分离	周围皮炎	造口回缩	造口脱垂	造口旁疝	VAS评分（±s）
传统造口组	60	19(31.7)	17(28.3)	11(18.3)	13(21.7)	9(15.0)	1.1±1.1
改良两针法组	32	2(6.2)	1(3.1)	1(3.1)	3(9.4)	3(9.4)	0.9±1.1
统计值		χ²=7.653	χ²=8.427	-	χ²=2.195	-	Z=-1.140
P值		0.006^a	0.004^a	0.051^b	0.138^a	0.532^b	0.254

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export