切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版) ›› 2023, Vol. 17 ›› Issue (06) : 682 -687. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-392X.2023.06.005

论著

造口旁疝危险因素预测模型构建
毛永欢, 仝瀚文, 缪骥, 王行舟, 沈晓菲(), 喻春钊()   
  1. 210008 南京鼓楼医院普外科
    210008 南京鼓楼医院急诊科
    210011 南京医科大学第二附属医院普外科;211112 南京医科大学附属逸夫医院普外科
  • 收稿日期:2023-04-02 出版日期:2023-12-18
  • 通信作者: 沈晓菲, 喻春钊
  • 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金(81970500); 南京鼓楼医院临床研究专项资金资助(2022-LCYJ-PY-33)

Analysis of risk factors and prediction model of parastomal hernia

Yonghuan Mao, Hanwen Tong, Ji Miao, Xingzhou Wang, Xiaofei Shen(), Chunzhao Yu()   

  1. Department of General Surgery, Drum Tower Hospital, Nanjing 210008, China
    Emergency Department, Drum Tower Hospital, Nanjing 210008, China
    Department of General Surgery, the Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing 210011, China; Department of General Surgery, Sir Run Run Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing 211112, China
  • Received:2023-04-02 Published:2023-12-18
  • Corresponding author: Xiaofei Shen, Chunzhao Yu
引用本文:

毛永欢, 仝瀚文, 缪骥, 王行舟, 沈晓菲, 喻春钊. 造口旁疝危险因素预测模型构建[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 682-687.

Yonghuan Mao, Hanwen Tong, Ji Miao, Xingzhou Wang, Xiaofei Shen, Chunzhao Yu. Analysis of risk factors and prediction model of parastomal hernia[J]. Chinese Journal of Hernia and Abdominal Wall Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2023, 17(06): 682-687.

目的

探究肠造口术后造口旁疝的发生率、危险因素,并构建预测模型。

方法

选取2015年7月至2020年12月,在南京鼓楼医院普外科行肠造口术的155例患者,收集患者资料,进行回顾性分析。根据患者术后是否发生造口旁疝分为对照组(未发生造口旁疝)和造口旁疝组(发生造口旁疝)。对患者的性别、年龄、体重指数、原发性高血压、糖尿病、造口部位(回肠或结肠)、手术时机(急诊或择期)、疾病类型(良性或恶性)、造口方式(端式或袢式)、造口位置(腹膜外或腹膜内)、手术时间、出血量、术后住院时间、术后切口感染、随访时间进行单因素分析。采用多因素Logistic回归分析评估肠造口术后发生造口旁疝的独立危险因素,并建立预测模型。

结果

155例肠造口术患者,发生造口旁疝的患者20例,造口旁疝的发生率为12.9%,其中7例行再次手术治疗,13例行保守治疗。单因素分析显示患者的年龄、体重指数、造口部位(回肠或结肠)、疾病类型(良性或恶性)、造口位置(腹膜外或腹膜内)、术后切口感染是肠造口术后造口旁疝发生的影响因素;性别、原发性高血压、糖尿病、慢性阻塞性肺疾病、手术时机(急诊或择期)、造口方式(端式或袢式)、手术时间、出血量、术后住院时间、随访时间不影响造口旁疝的发生。进一步行多因素Logistic回归分析显示,年龄≥70岁(OR 1.079,95% CI 1.006~1.157,P=0.035)、体重指数≥26.3 kg/m2OR 1.190,95% CI 1.021~1.388,P=0.026)、结肠造口(OR 4.629,95% CI 1.132~18.926,P=0.033)和术后切口感染(OR 3.303,95% CI 1.009~10.821,P=0.048)是肠造口术后发生造口旁疝的独立危险因素。

结论

对于年龄≥70岁、体重指数≥26.3 kg/m2、行结肠造口的患者应注意手术的精细操作,预防术后切口感染,并可以考虑行肠造口术联合预防性补片置入术,以降低造口旁疝发生率。

Objective

To explore the incidence, risk factors of parastomal hernia after enterostomy, and to construct a prediction model.

Methods

Selected 155 patients who underwent enterostomies at the General Surgery Department of Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital from July 2015 to December 2020, collected patient data, and conducted retrospective analysis. Patients were divided into a control group (no parastomal hernia) and a parastomal hernia group (parastomal hernia) according to the occurrence of postoperative parastomal hernia. Univariate analysis was conducted on patient’s gender, age, body mass index (BMI), hypertension, diabetes, colostomy parts (ileum and colon), timing of surgery (emergency or elective), type of disease (benign or malignant), colostomy method (end or loops), colostomy location (extraperitoneal or intraperitoneal), operation time, blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, postoperative incision infection, and follow-up time. Multivariate logistic regression analysis were used to evaluate the risk factors for parastomal hernia after enterostomy, and a prediction model was established.

Results

A total of 155 patients underwent enterostomy, and the incidence of parastomal hernia was 12.9% (20/155). Among them, 7 patients underwent secondary surgery and 13 underwent conservative treatment. Univariate analysis showed that age, BMI, stoma site (ileum or colon), disease type (benign or malignant), stoma location (extraperitoneal or intraperitoneal), and postoperative wound infection were the influencing factors for the occurrence of postoperative stomal hernia. However, gender, hypertension, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases, timing of surgery (emergency or elective), stoma method (end or loop), operation time, blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, and follow-up time did not affect the occurrence of peristomal hernia. Further multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that age ≥70 years (OR 1.079, 95% CI 1.006~1.157, P=0.035), BMI ≥26.3 kg/m2 (OR 1.190, 95% CI 1.021~1.388, P=0.026), colostomy (OR 4.629, 95% CI 1.132~18.926, P=0.033) and postoperative wound infection (OR 3.303, 95% CI 1.009~10.821, P=0.048) were independent risk factors for parastomal hernia after enterostomy.

Conclusion

For patients with an age ≥70 years old, BMI ≥26.3 kg/m2, and colostomies attention should be paid to a fine operation to prevent incision infection. Enterostomy combined with prophylactic mesh placement can be considered to reduce the incidence of parastomal hernia.

表1 肠造口术后发生造口旁疝的单因素分析
表2 肠造口术后发生造口旁疝的Logistic回归多因素分析
图1 造口旁疝预测模型的Nomogram图
图2 造口旁疝预测模型的内部验证图
[1]
Bass EM, Del Pino A, Tan A, et al. Does preoperative stoma marking and education by the enterostomal therapist affect outcome?[J]. Dis Colon Rectum, 1997, 40(4): 440-442.
[2]
Köhler G. Principles and parallels of prevention and repair of parastomal hernia with meshes[J]. Chirurg, 2020, 91(3): 245-251.
[3]
Gachabayov M, Orujova L, Latifi La, et al. Use of Biologic Mesh for the Treatment and Prevention of Parastomal Hernias[J]. Surg Technol Int, 2020, 37(11): 115-119.
[4]
Malik T, Lee MJ, Harikrishnan AB. The incidence of stoma related morbidity-a systematic review of randomised controlled trials[J]. Ann R Coll Surg Engl, 2018, 100(7): 501-508.
[5]
Brandsma HT, Hansson BM, Aufenacker TJ, et al. Prophylactic mesh placement to prevent parastomal hernia, early results of a prospective multicentre randomized trial[J]. Hernia, 2016, 20(4): 535-541.
[6]
Malik T, Lee MJ, Harikrishnan AB. The incidence of stoma related morbidity-a systematic review of randomised controlled trials[J]. Ann R Coll Surg Engl, 2018, 100(7): 501-508.
[7]
Kaneko T, Funahashi K, Ushigome M, et al. Incidence of and risk factors for incisional hernia after closure of temporary ileostomy for colorectal malignancy[J]. Hernia, 2019, 23(4): 743-748.
[8]
朱乐乐, 王飞通, 刘星, 等. 腹会阴联合直肠癌根治术后发生造口旁疝的影响因素[J]. 中国普外基础与临床杂志, 2018, 25(8): 964-969.
[9]
Carne PW, Robertson GM, Frizelle FA. Parastomal hernia[J]. Br J Surg, 2003, 90(7): 784-793.
[10]
Pinkney T. Parastomal Hernia-Cinderella no more[J]. Colorectal Dis, 2019, 21(11): 1235-1236.
[11]
Ryu S, Bae BN. Rectal free perforation after stapled hemorrhoidopexy: a case report of laparoscopic peritoneal lavage and repair without stoma[J]. Int J Surg Case Rep, 2017, 30(1): 40- 42.
[12]
San C, Muñoz J, Robin Á, et al. Modified Pauli abdominal wall reconstruction for recurrent parastomal hernia after a sugarbaker repair: a video vignette[J]. Colorectal Disease, 2019, 21(10): 74-83.
[13]
Lorenz Andreas, Kogler Pamela, Kafka-Ritsch Reinhold, et al. Incisional hernia at the site of stoma reversal-incidence and risk factors in a retrospective observational analysis[J]. Int J Colorectal Dis, 2019, 34(7): 1179-1187.
[14]
Calvo Espino P, Sánchez Movilla A, Alonso Sebastian I, et al. Incidence and risk factors of delayed development for stoma site incisional hernia after ileostomy closure in patients undergoing colorectal surgery with temporary ileostomy[J]. Acta Chir Belg, 2022 ,122(1): 41-47.
[15]
De Robles Ms, Bakhtiar A, Young C. Obesity is a significant risk factor for ileostomy site incisional hernia following reversal[J]. ANZ J Surg, 2019, 89(4): 399-402.
[16]
Ghoreifi A, Allgood E, Whang G, et al. Risk factors and natural history of parastomal hernia after radical cystectomy and ileal conduit[J]. BJU Int, 2022, 130(3): 381-388.
[17]
Parker SG, Mallett S, Quinn L, et al. Identifying predictors of ventral hernia recurrence: systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. BJS Open, 2021, 5(2): 1-9.
[18]
Gignoux B, Bayon Y, Martin D, et al. Incidence and risk factors for incisional hernia and recurrence: Retrospective analysis of the French national database[J]. Colorectal Dis, 2021, 23(6): 1515-1523.
[19]
Shiraishi T, Nishizawa Y, Ikeda K, et al. Risk factors for parastomal hernia of loop stoma and relationships with other stoma complications in laparoscopic surgery era[J]. BMC Surg, 2020, 20(1): 141.
[20]
Reinforcement of Closure of Stoma Site(ROCSS) Collaborative and West Midlands Research Collaborative. Prophylactic biological mesh reinforcement versus standard closure of stoma site(ROCSS): a multicentre, randomized controlled trial[J]. Lancet, 2020, 395(10222): 417-426.
[1] 刘欢颜, 华扬, 贾凌云, 赵新宇, 刘蓓蓓. 颈内动脉闭塞病变管腔结构和血流动力学特征分析[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2023, 20(08): 809-815.
[2] 马艳波, 华扬, 刘桂梅, 孟秀峰, 崔立平. 中青年人颈动脉粥样硬化病变的相关危险因素分析[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2023, 20(08): 822-826.
[3] 黄应雄, 叶子, 蒋鹏, 詹红, 姚陈, 崔冀. 急性肠系膜静脉血栓形成致透壁性肠坏死的临床危险因素分析[J]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 413-421.
[4] 张再博, 王冰雨, 焦志凯, 檀碧波. 胃癌术后下肢深静脉血栓危险因素的Meta分析[J]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 475-480.
[5] 唐旭, 韩冰, 刘威, 陈茹星. 结直肠癌根治术后隐匿性肝转移危险因素分析及预测模型构建[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 16-20.
[6] 吴方园, 孙霞, 林昌锋, 张震生. HBV相关肝硬化合并急性上消化道出血的危险因素分析[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 45-47.
[7] 陈旭渊, 罗仕云, 李文忠, 李毅. 腺源性肛瘘经手术治疗后创面愈合困难的危险因素分析[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 82-85.
[8] 晏晴艳, 雍晓梅, 罗洪, 杜敏. 成都地区老年转移性乳腺癌的预后及生存因素研究[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 636-638.
[9] 莫闲, 杨闯. 肝硬化患者并发门静脉血栓危险因素的Meta分析[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 678-683.
[10] 贺亮, 王松林, 周业江. 两种预防性回肠造口在腹腔镜ISR术治疗超低位直肠癌的效果对比研究[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 697-700.
[11] 倪文凯, 齐翀, 许小丹, 周燮程, 殷庆章, 蔡元坤. 结直肠癌患者术后发生延迟性肠麻痹的影响因素分析[J]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2023, 12(06): 484-489.
[12] 陆猛桂, 黄斌, 李秋林, 何媛梅. 蜂蛰伤患者发生多器官功能障碍综合征的危险因素分析[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(9): 1010-1015.
[13] 李达, 张大涯, 陈润祥, 张晓冬, 黄士美, 陈晨, 曾凡, 陈世锔, 白飞虎. 海南省东方市幽门螺杆菌感染现状的调查与相关危险因素分析[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(08): 858-864.
[14] 李琪, 黄钟莹, 袁平, 关振鹏. 基于某三级医院的ICU多重耐药菌医院感染影响因素的分析[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(07): 777-782.
[15] 孟科, 李燕, 闫婧爽, 闫斌. 胶囊内镜胃通过时间的影响因素分析[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 671-675.
阅读次数
全文


摘要