Comparison of modified gunsight suture technique and traditional interrupted suture in enterostomy closure

BACKGROUND: Prophylactic enterostomy surgery is a common surgical approach used to reduce the risk of anastomotic leakage in patients who have undergone partial intestinal resection due to trauma or tumors. However, the traditional interrupted suturing technique used in enterostomy closure surgery has several issues, including longer surgical incisions and higher incision tension, which can increase the risk of postoperative complications. To address these issues, scholars have proposed the use of a “gunsight suture” technique. This technique involves using a gunsight incision instead of a traditional linear incision, leaving a gap in the center for the drainage of blood and fluid to reduce the risk of infection. Building on this technique, we propose an improved gunsight suture technique. A drainage tube is placed at the lowest point of the incision and close the gap in the center of the gunsight suture, which theoretically facilitates early postoperative mobility and reduces the burden of dressing changes, thereby reducing the risk of postoperative complications. AIM: To compare the effectiveness of improved gunsight suture technique with traditional interrupted suture in closing intestinal stomas. METHODS: In this study, a retrospective, single-center case analysis was conducted on 270 patients who underwent prophylactic ileostomy closure surgery at the Department of Colorectal Surgery of Qilu Hospital from April 2017 to December 2021. The patients were divided into two groups: 135 patients received sutures using the improved gunsight method, while the remaining 135 patients were sutured with the traditional interrupted suture method. We collected data on a variety of parameters, such as operation time, postoperative pain score, body temperature, length of hospital stays, laboratory indicators, incidence of incisional complications, number of wound dressing changes, and hospitalization costs. Non-parametric tests and chi-square tests were utilized for data analysis. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in general patient information between the two groups, including the interval between the first surgery and the stoma closure [132 (105, 184) d vs 134 (109, 181) d, P = 0.63], gender ratio (0.64 vs 0.69, P = 0.44), age [62 (52, 68) years vs 60 (52, 68) years, P = 0.33], preoperative body mass index (BMI) [23.83 (21.60, 25.95) kg/m² vs 23.12 (20.94, 25.06) kg/m², P = 0.17]. The incidence of incision infection in the improved gunsight suture group tended to be lower than that in the traditional interrupted suture group [ (n = 2/135, 1.4%) vs (n = 10/135, 7.4%), P < 0.05], and the postoperative hospital stay in the improved gunsight suture group was significantly shorter than that in the traditional interrupted suture group [5 (4, 7) d vs 7 (6, 8) d, P < 0.05]. Additionally, the surgical cost in the modified gunsight suture group was slightly lower than that in the traditional suture group [4840 (4330, 5138) yuan vs 4980 (4726, 5221) yuan, P > 0.05], but there was no significant difference in the total hospitalization cost between the two groups. CONCLUSION: In stoma closure surgery, the improved gunsight technique can reduce the incision infection rate, shorten the postoperative hospital stay, reduce wound tension, and provide better wound cosmetic effects compared to traditional interrupted suture.