Gaetano Luglio1, Francesco Corcione2. 1. Department of Public Health, University of Naples Federico II, Via Pansini 5, Naples, Italy. gaetano.luglio@unina.it. 2. Department of Public Health, University of Naples Federico II, Via Pansini 5, Naples, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This is the first systematic review specifically investigating ileocolic anastomosis. OBJECTIVES: To compare outcomes of ileocolic anastomoses performed using stapling and handsewn techniques. The hypothesis tested was that the stapling technique is associated with fewer complications. SEARCH STRATEGY: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Colorectal Cancer Group specialised register SR-COLOCA, and Cochrane Library were searched for randomised controlled trials comparing the use of a linear cutter stapler with any type of suturing technique for ileocolic anastomoses in adults from 1970 to 2005. Selection criteria were randomised controlled trials comparing the use of linear cutter stapler (isoperistaltic side to side or functional end to end) with any type of suturing technique in adults. Regarding data collection and analysis, eligible studies were selected and their methodological quality assessed. Sub-group analyses for cancer and inflammatory bowel disease as indication for ileocolic anastomoses were performed. RESULTS: Six trials (including one unpublished) with 955 ileocolic participants were included. The three largest trials had adequate allocation concealment. Stapled anastomosis was associated with significantly fewer anastomotic leaks compared with the handsewn technique (S = 5/357, HS = 36/598, OR 0.34 [0.14, 0.82] p = 0.02). For the sub-group of 825 cancer patients in four studies, stapled anastomosis led to significantly fewer anastomotic leaks (S = 4/300, HS = 35/525, OR 0.28 [0.10, 0.75] p = 0.01). There were very less Crohn's disease patients to perform a sub-group analysis. All other outcomes showed no significant difference. CONCLUSIONS: Stapled functional end-to-end ileocolic anastomosis is associated with fewer leaks than handsewn anastomosis.
BACKGROUND: This is the first systematic review specifically investigating ileocolic anastomosis. OBJECTIVES: To compare outcomes of ileocolic anastomoses performed using stapling and handsewn techniques. The hypothesis tested was that the stapling technique is associated with fewer complications. SEARCH STRATEGY: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Colorectal Cancer Group specialised register SR-COLOCA, and Cochrane Library were searched for randomised controlled trials comparing the use of a linear cutter stapler with any type of suturing technique for ileocolic anastomoses in adults from 1970 to 2005. Selection criteria were randomised controlled trials comparing the use of linear cutter stapler (isoperistaltic side to side or functional end to end) with any type of suturing technique in adults. Regarding data collection and analysis, eligible studies were selected and their methodological quality assessed. Sub-group analyses for cancer and inflammatory bowel disease as indication for ileocolic anastomoses were performed. RESULTS: Six trials (including one unpublished) with 955 ileocolic participants were included. The three largest trials had adequate allocation concealment. Stapled anastomosis was associated with significantly fewer anastomotic leaks compared with the handsewn technique (S = 5/357, HS = 36/598, OR 0.34 [0.14, 0.82] p = 0.02). For the sub-group of 825 cancerpatients in four studies, stapled anastomosis led to significantly fewer anastomotic leaks (S = 4/300, HS = 35/525, OR 0.28 [0.10, 0.75] p = 0.01). There were very less Crohn's diseasepatients to perform a sub-group analysis. All other outcomes showed no significant difference. CONCLUSIONS: Stapled functional end-to-end ileocolic anastomosis is associated with fewer leaks than handsewn anastomosis.
Authors: S R Brown; N S Fearnhead; O D Faiz; J F Abercrombie; A G Acheson; R G Arnott; S K Clark; S Clifford; R J Davies; M M Davies; W J P Douie; M G Dunlop; J C Epstein; M D Evans; B D George; R J Guy; R Hargest; A B Hawthorne; J Hill; G W Hughes; J K Limdi; C A Maxwell-Armstrong; P R O'Connell; T D Pinkney; J Pipe; P M Sagar; B Singh; M Soop; H Terry; J Torkington; A Verjee; C J Walsh; J H Warusavitarne; A B Williams; G L Williams; R G Wilson Journal: Colorectal Dis Date: 2018-12 Impact factor: 3.788
Authors: Willem A Bemelman; Janindra Warusavitarne; Gianluca M Sampietro; Zuzana Serclova; Oded Zmora; Gaetano Luglio; Anthony de Buck van Overstraeten; John P Burke; Christianne J Buskens; Francesco Colombo; Jorge Amil Dias; Rami Eliakim; Tomás Elosua; I Ethem Gecim; Sanja Kolacek; Jaroslaw Kierkus; Kaija-Leena Kolho; Jérémie H Lefevre; Monica Millan; Yves Panis; Thomas Pinkney; Richard K Russell; Chaya Shwaartz; Carolynne Vaizey; Nuha Yassin; André D'Hoore Journal: J Crohns Colitis Date: 2018-01-05 Impact factor: 9.071
Authors: Constantinos Simillis; Sanjay Purkayastha; Takayuki Yamamoto; Scott A Strong; Ara W Darzi; Paris P Tekkis Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: Calvin J Coffey; Miranda G Kiernan; Shaheel M Sahebally; Awad Jarrar; John P Burke; Patrick A Kiely; Bo Shen; David Waldron; Colin Peirce; Manus Moloney; Maeve Skelly; Paul Tibbitts; Hena Hidayat; Peter N Faul; Vourneen Healy; Peter D O'Leary; Leon G Walsh; Peter Dockery; Ronan P O'Connell; Sean T Martin; Fergus Shanahan; Claudio Fiocchi; Colum P Dunne Journal: J Crohns Colitis Date: 2018-11-09 Impact factor: 9.071
Authors: Christian Schineis; Andrea Ullrich; Kai S Lehmann; Christoph Holmer; Johannes C Lauscher; Benjamin Weixler; Martin E Kreis; Claudia Seifarth Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-03-04 Impact factor: 3.240