Literature DB >> 11687041

Stapled versus handsewn methods for colorectal anastomosis surgery.

S A Lustosa1, D Matos, A N Atallah, A A Castro.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials comparing stapled with handsewn colorectal anastomosis have not shown either technique to be superior, perhaps because individual studies lacked statistical power. A systematic review, with pooled analysis of results, might provide a more definitive answer.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the safety and effectiveness of stapled and handsewn colorectal anastomosis. The following primary hypothesis was tested: the stapled technique is more effective because it decreases the level of complications. SEARCH STRATEGY: The RCT register of the Cochrane Review Group was searched for any trial or reference to a relevant trial (published, in-press, or in progress). All publications were sought through computerised searches of EMBASE, LILACS, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trials Database, and through letters to industrial companies and authors. There were no limits upon language, date, or other criteria. STUDIES: All randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in which stapled and handsewn colorectal anastomosis were compared. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients submitted electively to colorectal anastomosis.
INTERVENTIONS: Endoluminal circular stapler and handsewn colorectal anastomosis. OUTCOMES: a) Mortality b) Overall Anastomotic Dehiscence c) Clinical Anastomotic Dehiscence d) Radiological Anastomotic Dehiscence e) Stricture f) Anastomotic Haemorrhage g) Reoperation h) Wound Infection i) Anastomosis Duration j) Hospital Stay. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were independently extracted by the two reviewers (SASL, DM) and cross-checked. The methodological quality of each trial was assessed by the same two reviewers. Details of the randomization (generation and concealment), blinding, whether an intention-to-treat analysis was done, and the number of patients lost to follow-up were recorded. The results of each RCT were summarised on an intention-to-treat basis in 2 x 2 tables for each outcome. External validity was defined by characteristics of the participants, the interventions and the outcomes. The RCTs were stratified according to the level of colorectal anastomosis. The Risk Difference method (random effects model) and NNT for dichotomous outcomes measures and weighted mean difference for continuous outcomes measures, with the corresponding 95% confidence interval, were presented in this review. Statistical heterogeneity was evaluated by using funnel plot and chi-square testing. MAIN
RESULTS: Of the 1233 patients enrolled ( in 9 trials), 622 were treated with stapled, and 611 with manual, suture. The following main results were obtained: a) Mortality: result based on 901 patients; Risk Difference - 0.6% Confidence Interval -2.8% to +1.6%. b) Overall Dehiscence: result based on 1233 patients; Risk Difference 0.2%, 95% Confidence Interval -5.0% to +5.3%. c) Clinical Anastomotic Dehiscence : result based on 1233 patients; Risk Difference -1.4%, 95% Confidence Interval -5.2 to +2.3%. d) Radiological Anastomotic Dehiscence : result based on 825 patients; Risk Difference 1.2%, 95% Confidence Interval -4.8% to +7.3%. e) Stricture: result based on 1042 patients; Risk Difference 4.6%, 95% Confidence Interval 1.2% to 8.1%. Number needed to treat 17, 95% confidence interval 12 to 31. f) Anastomotic Hemorrhage: result based on 662 patients; Risk Difference 2.7%, 95% Confidence Interval - 0.1% to +5.5%. g) Reoperation: result based on 544 patients; Risk Difference 3.9%, 95% Confidence Interval 0.3% to 7.4%. h) Wound Infection: result based on 567 patients; Risk Difference 1.0%, 95% Confidence Interval -2.2% to +4.3%. i) Anastomosis duration: result based on one study (159 patients); Weighted Mean Difference -7.6 minutes, 95% Confidence Interval -12.9 to -2.2 minutes. j) Hospital Stay: result based on one study (159 patients), Weighted Mean Difference 2.0 days, 95% Confidence Interval -3.27 to +7.2 days. REVIEWER'S
CONCLUSIONS: The evidence found was insufficient to demonstrate any superiority of stapled over handsewn techniques in colorectal anastomosis, regardless of the level of anastomosis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11687041     DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003144

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev        ISSN: 1361-6137


  49 in total

1.  Early experience of the compression anastomosis ring (CAR™ 27) in left-sided colon resection.

Authors:  Jung-Yeon Lee; Jin-Hee Woo; Hong-Jo Choi; Ki-Jae Park; Young-Hoon Roh; Ki-Han Kim; Hak-Yoon Lee
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2011-11-21       Impact factor: 5.742

2.  Endoscopic intraoperative anastomotic testing may avoid early gastrointestinal anastomotic complications. A prospective study.

Authors:  Eva Lieto; Michele Orditura; Paolo Castellano; Margherita Pinto; Anna Zamboli; Ferdinando De Vita; Carlo Pignatelli; Gennaro Galizia
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 3.452

3.  Risk factors and outcomes for anastomotic leakage in colorectal surgery: a single-institution analysis of 1576 patients.

Authors:  Mark A Boccola; Petra G Buettner; Warren M Rozen; Simon K Siu; Andrew R L Stevenson; Russell Stitz; Yik-Hong Ho
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 3.352

Review 4.  Techniques for colorectal anastomosis.

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

5.  Pilot study of bipolar radiofrequency-induced anastomotic thermofusion-exploration of therapy parameters ex vivo.

Authors:  Hanno Winter; Christoph Holmer; Heinz-Johannes Buhr; Gerd Lindner; Roland Lauster; Marc Kraft; Jörg-Peter Ritz
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2009-08-25       Impact factor: 2.571

6.  Buttressing staples with cholecyst-derived extracellular matrix (CEM) reinforces staple lines in an ex vivo peristaltic inflation model.

Authors:  Krishna Burugapalli; Jeffrey C Y Chan; John L Kelly; Abhay Pandit
Journal:  Obes Surg       Date:  2008-05-06       Impact factor: 4.129

7.  Laparoscopy following peritoneal entry during transanal endoscopic microsurgery may increase the safety and maximize the benefits of the transanal excision.

Authors:  N Issa; Y Fenig; M Yasin; H Schmilovitz-Weiss; W Khoury; E Powsner
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2016-02-23       Impact factor: 3.781

8.  Predictive Factors for Small Intestinal and Colonic Anastomotic Leak: a Multivariate Analysis.

Authors:  Ahmad Sakr; Sameh Hany Emile; Emad Abdallah; Waleed Thabet; Wael Khafagy
Journal:  Indian J Surg       Date:  2016-10-17       Impact factor: 0.656

9.  Intraoperative colonoscopy for stapled anastomosis in colorectal surgery.

Authors:  Soichiro Ishihara; Toshiaki Watanabe; Hirokazu Nagawa
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2008-10-29       Impact factor: 2.549

10.  Reconstruction techniques after proctectomy: what's the best?

Authors:  Sebastian G de la Fuente; Christopher R Mantyh
Journal:  Clin Colon Rectal Surg       Date:  2007-08
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.