BACKGROUND: Recent studies have identified unique clinical and physiologic characteristics of emergency general surgery (EGS) patients and called for outcomes data in this population. There are no data in the US literature analyzing the impact of technique on anastomotic failure rates in EGS patients. The purpose of the current study was to compare outcomes of hand-sewn (HS) versus stapled (ST) bowel anastomoses in EGS patients. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of all patients admitted by our EGS service undergoing bowel resection for emergent indications from January 2007 to July 2011 was performed. Time from surgery to diagnosis of anastomotic failure was recorded as were the diagnostic modality and treatment of each anastomotic failure. Specific data on damage-control techniques, if used, were also collected. RESULTS: There were 100 HS (43%), and 133 ST (57%) anastomoses in 231 patients. Operative times were shorter in ST anastomosis technique (205 minutes for HS vs. 193 minutes for ST, p = 0.02). Anastomotic failures were identified in 26 patients (11%) and were significantly higher in the ST group than the HS group (15.0% vs. 6.1%, p = 0.003). A multivariate logistic regression analysis, controlling for age and preoperative nutritional status, revealed ST technique to be an independent risk factor for anastomotic failure (odds ratio, 2.65; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-6.50; p = 0.034). CONCLUSION: Anastomotic failures are more than twice as likely with ST than HS anastomoses in the EGS population. This is true even when controlling for markers of preoperative nutrition and demographics. These data suggest that the HS anastomosis should be the preferred method of reconstruction after bowel resection in EGS patients.
BACKGROUND: Recent studies have identified unique clinical and physiologic characteristics of emergency general surgery (EGS) patients and called for outcomes data in this population. There are no data in the US literature analyzing the impact of technique on anastomotic failure rates in EGSpatients. The purpose of the current study was to compare outcomes of hand-sewn (HS) versus stapled (ST) bowel anastomoses in EGSpatients. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of all patients admitted by our EGS service undergoing bowel resection for emergent indications from January 2007 to July 2011 was performed. Time from surgery to diagnosis of anastomotic failure was recorded as were the diagnostic modality and treatment of each anastomotic failure. Specific data on damage-control techniques, if used, were also collected. RESULTS: There were 100 HS (43%), and 133 ST (57%) anastomoses in 231 patients. Operative times were shorter in ST anastomosis technique (205 minutes for HS vs. 193 minutes for ST, p = 0.02). Anastomotic failures were identified in 26 patients (11%) and were significantly higher in the ST group than the HS group (15.0% vs. 6.1%, p = 0.003). A multivariate logistic regression analysis, controlling for age and preoperative nutritional status, revealed ST technique to be an independent risk factor for anastomotic failure (odds ratio, 2.65; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-6.50; p = 0.034). CONCLUSION:Anastomotic failures are more than twice as likely with ST than HS anastomoses in the EGS population. This is true even when controlling for markers of preoperative nutrition and demographics. These data suggest that the HS anastomosis should be the preferred method of reconstruction after bowel resection in EGSpatients.
Authors: Chaya Shwaartz; Adam C Fields; Maximiliano Sobrero; Brian D Cohen; Celia M Divino Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2016-07-12 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Christina M Fruehwald; Penny J Regier; Kaitlyn M Mullen; Monica Waln; Kaitlyn L McNamara; James Colee Journal: Can J Vet Res Date: 2022-07 Impact factor: 0.897
Authors: Mohamed Sahloul; Ahmed Karim; Kuljit S Chohan; Abd A Tahrani; Kamal Mahawar; Martin Richardson; Christian Ludwig; Markos Daskalakis; Rishi Singhal Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2018-09 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Karrer M Alghazali; Alisha P Pedersen; Rabab N Hamzah; Pierre-Yves Mulon; Rebecca E Rifkin; Anwer Mhannawee; Zeid A Nima Alsudani; Christopher Griffin; Malek A H Muhi; Nikki Mullen; Robert L Donnell; David E Anderson; Alexandru S Biris Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-02-25 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Luke Smyth; Cino Bendinelli; Nicholas Lee; Matthew G Reeds; Eu Jhin Loh; Francesco Amico; Zsolt J Balogh; Salomone Di Saverio; Dieter Weber; Richard Peter Ten Broek; Fikri M Abu-Zidan; Giampiero Campanelli; Solomon Gurmu Beka; Massimo Chiarugi; Vishal G Shelat; Edward Tan; Ernest Moore; Luigi Bonavina; Rifat Latifi; Andreas Hecker; Jim Khan; Raul Coimbra; Giovanni D Tebala; Kjetil Søreide; Imtiaz Wani; Kenji Inaba; Andrew W Kirkpatrick; Kaoru Koike; Gabriele Sganga; Walter L Biffl; Osvaldo Chiara; Thomas M Scalea; Gustavo P Fraga; Andrew B Peitzman; Fausto Catena Journal: World J Emerg Surg Date: 2022-03-04 Impact factor: 5.469