Literature DB >> 10663896

Comparison between the biofragmentable anastomosis ring and stapled anastomoses in the extraperitoneal rectum: a prospective, randomized study.

G Galizia1, E Lieto, P Castellano, L Pelosio, V Imperatore, F Canfora, C Pignatelli.   

Abstract

Serious complications can be carried by intestinal anastomoses, particularly in the distal and proximal part of the gastrointestinal tract. The biofragmentable anastomosis ring (BAR) has been shown to be a safe anastomotic technique, but its clinical applicability in the extraperitoneal rectum has not yet been completely established. This study compared BAR anastomoses and stapled anastomoses in the middle rectum. Thirty-six consecutive patients initially suitable for elective colorectal anastomosis in the middle rectum were enrolled into this study. All patients had intraperitoneal rectum carcinoma, and 31 underwent a colorectal anastomosis in the middle extraperitoneal rectum. They were randomly allocated to a stapled technique or BAR anastomosis. Intraoperative findings and technical drawbacks, tumor behavior, and postoperative course were recorded. All patients were followed up, and late stenosis rate was investigated by endoscopy. The procedure was carried out in each of the 15 patients randomized to receiving a BAR anastomosis. No major difficulties were encountered, and the time needed was even less than that required for a stapled anastomosis. One patient in the stapled group had an early bleeding that required a further laparotomy. No significant differences in postoperative complications were noted between the two groups, although one patient with stapled anastomosis experienced a clinical leakage that needed loop colostomy. Biofragmentability was regular; buttons were eliminated in 3 weeks without any bowel disturbance. BAR ring insertion in the deep pelvis did not produce a shorter colonic resection. The late stenosis rate was similar between the groups. This study shows that in extraperitoneal middle rectum BAR anastomosis is as feasible and safe as the stapled method. The latter is more expensive, and manual suture is more difficult. Therefore the BAR is now the method of choice for this anastomosis in the authors' unit.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10663896     DOI: 10.1007/s003840050230

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis        ISSN: 0179-1958            Impact factor:   2.571


  9 in total

Review 1.  Compression anastomoses in colorectal surgery: a review.

Authors:  A P Zbar; Y Nir; A Weizman; M Rabau; A Senagore
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2012-04-26       Impact factor: 3.781

Review 2.  Techniques for colorectal anastomosis.

Authors:  Yik Hong Ho; Mohamed Ahmed Tawfik Ashour
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2010-04-07       Impact factor: 5.742

3.  Predictive factors of stenosis after stapled colorectal anastomosis: prospective analysis of 179 consecutive patients.

Authors:  Guillermo C Bannura; Miguel Angel G Cumsille; Alejandro E Barrera; Jaime P Contreras; Carlos L Melo; Daniel C Soto
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 3.352

Review 4.  Compression versus hand-sewn and stapled anastomosis in colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  A A P Slesser; G Pellino; O Shariq; D Cocker; C Kontovounisios; S Rasheed; P P Tekkis
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2016-08-23       Impact factor: 3.781

5.  Compression anastomotic ring-locking procedure (CARP) is a safe and effective method for intestinal anastomoses following left-sided colonic resection.

Authors:  Dadi Vilhjalmsson; Stefan Appelros; Ervin Toth; Ingvar Syk; Anders Grönberg; Tommie Mynster; Henrik Thorlacius
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2015-05-20       Impact factor: 2.571

6.  End-to-end intestinal anastomosis using a novel biodegradable stent for laparoscopic colonic surgery: a multicenter study.

Authors:  Mingyu Chen; Jiasheng Cao; Diyu Huang; Bin Zhang; Long Pan; Zhongtao Zhang; Zhenjun Wang; Yingjiang Ye; Dianrong Xiu; Dechuan Li; Xiujun Cai
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2019-06-29       Impact factor: 2.549

Review 7.  Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Colorectal Anastomotic Techniques.

Authors:  Jana Steger; Alissa Jell; Stefanie Ficht; Daniel Ostler; Markus Eblenkamp; Petra Mela; Dirk Wilhelm
Journal:  Ther Clin Risk Manag       Date:  2022-05-04       Impact factor: 2.755

8.  Sutureless jejuno-jejunal anastomosis in gastric cancer patients: a comparison with handsewn procedure in a single institute.

Authors:  Luigi Marano; Bartolomeo Braccio; Michele Schettino; Giuseppe Izzo; Angelo Cosenza; Michele Grassia; Raffaele Porfidia; Gianmarco Reda; Marianna Petrillo; Giuseppe Esposito; Natale Di Martino
Journal:  BMC Surg       Date:  2012-11-15       Impact factor: 2.102

Review 9.  Gastrointestinal tract anastomoses with the biofragmentable anastomosis ring: is it still a valid technique for bowel anastomosis? Analysis of 203 cases and review of the literature.

Authors:  Adam Bobkiewicz; Adam Studniarek; Lukasz Krokowicz; Krzysztof Szmyt; Maciej Borejsza-Wysocki; Jacek Szmeja; Ryszard Marciniak; Michal Drews; Tomasz Banasiewicz
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2016-09-30       Impact factor: 2.571

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.