PURPOSE: The aims of this study are to compare the 30-day rate of bowel obstruction for stapled vs. handsewn closure of loop ileostomy, and to further assess efficacy and safety for each technique by secondary endpoints such as operative time, rates of anastomotic leakage, and other post-operative complications within 30 days. METHODS: A systematic literature search (MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE and ISI Web of Science) was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing stapled and handsewn closure of loop ileostomy after low anterior resection. Random effects meta-analyses were calculated and presented as risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) with corresponding 95 % confidence intervals. RESULTS: Forty publications were retrieved and 4 RCTs (649 patients) were included. There was methodological and clinical heterogeneity of included trials, but statistical heterogeneity was low for most endpoints. Stapler use significantly reduced the rate of bowel obstruction compared to hand-sewn closure (RR 0.53 [0.32, 0.88]; P = 0.01). The operation time was significantly lower for stapling compared to hand suture (MD -15.5 min [-18.4, 12.6]; P < 0.001). All other secondary outcomes did not show significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis shows superiority of stapled closure of loop ileostomy compared to handsewn closure in terms of bowel obstruction rate and mean operation time. Other relevant complications such as anastomotic leakage are equivalent. Even so, both techniques are options with opposing advantages and disadvantages.
PURPOSE: The aims of this study are to compare the 30-day rate of bowel obstruction for stapled vs. handsewn closure of loop ileostomy, and to further assess efficacy and safety for each technique by secondary endpoints such as operative time, rates of anastomotic leakage, and other post-operative complications within 30 days. METHODS: A systematic literature search (MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE and ISI Web of Science) was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing stapled and handsewn closure of loop ileostomy after low anterior resection. Random effects meta-analyses were calculated and presented as risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) with corresponding 95 % confidence intervals. RESULTS: Forty publications were retrieved and 4 RCTs (649 patients) were included. There was methodological and clinical heterogeneity of included trials, but statistical heterogeneity was low for most endpoints. Stapler use significantly reduced the rate of bowel obstruction compared to hand-sewn closure (RR 0.53 [0.32, 0.88]; P = 0.01). The operation time was significantly lower for stapling compared to hand suture (MD -15.5 min [-18.4, 12.6]; P < 0.001). All other secondary outcomes did not show significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis shows superiority of stapled closure of loop ileostomy compared to handsewn closure in terms of bowel obstruction rate and mean operation time. Other relevant complications such as anastomotic leakage are equivalent. Even so, both techniques are options with opposing advantages and disadvantages.
Authors: Richard E Lovegrove; Vasilis A Constantinides; Alexander G Heriot; Thanos Athanasiou; Ara Darzi; Feza H Remzi; R John Nicholls; Victor W Fazio; Paris P Tekkis Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Nihat Kaymakcioglu; Gokhan Yagci; Mehmet Fatih Can; Aytekin Unlu; Nail Bulakbasi; Sadettin Cetiner; Turgut Tufan Journal: West Afr J Med Date: 2006 Oct-Dec
Authors: Jonathan A C Sterne; Alex J Sutton; John P A Ioannidis; Norma Terrin; David R Jones; Joseph Lau; James Carpenter; Gerta Rücker; Roger M Harbord; Christopher H Schmid; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Jonathan J Deeks; Jaime Peters; Petra Macaskill; Guido Schwarzer; Sue Duval; Douglas G Altman; David Moher; Julian P T Higgins Journal: BMJ Date: 2011-07-22
Authors: B Lefebure; J J Tuech; V Bridoux; B Costaglioli; M Scotte; P Teniere; F Michot Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2007-09-02 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Thorsten Löffler; Christoph M Seiler; Inga Rossion; Thomas Kijak; Oliver Thomusch; Renè Hodina; Matthias Krüger; Thomas Simon; Thomas Bruckner; Meinhard Kieser; Markus W Büchler; Jürgen Weitz Journal: Trials Date: 2011-02-08 Impact factor: 2.279
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: Käthe Goossen; Solveig Tenckhoff; Pascal Probst; Kathrin Grummich; André L Mihaljevic; Markus W Büchler; Markus K Diener Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2017-12-05 Impact factor: 3.445
Authors: F Ferrara; D Parini; A Bondurri; M Veltri; M Barbierato; F Pata; F Cattaneo; A Tafuri; C Forni; G Roveron; G Rizzo Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2019-10-12 Impact factor: 3.781
Authors: Katie W Russell; Brigid P O'Holleran; Megan E Bowen; Mary C Mone; Courtney L Scaife Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2015-09-04 Impact factor: 3.452