Stapled versus handsewn methods for colorectal anastomosis surgery

Stapled versus handsewn methods for colorectal anastomosis surgery

Author Neutzling, Cristiane B. Autor UNIFESP Google Scholar
Lustosa, Suzana A. S. Google Scholar
Proenca, Igor M. Autor UNIFESP Google Scholar
Silva, Edina M. K. da Autor UNIFESP Google Scholar
Matos, Delcio Autor UNIFESP Google Scholar
Institution Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)
UEPE
Abstract BackgroundPrevious systematic reviews comparing stapled and handsewn colorectal anastomosis that are available in the medical literature have not shown either technique to be superior. An update of this systematic review was performed to find out if there are any data that properly answer this question.ObjectivesTo compare the safety and effectiveness of stapled and handsewn colorectal anastomosis surgery. the following primary hypothesis was tested: the stapled technique is more effective because it decreases the level of complications.Search methodsA computerized search was performed in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE according to the strategies of the Colorectal Cancer Group of the Cochrane Collaboration. There were no limits upon language, date or other criteria. A revised search strategy was performed for this updated version of the review May 2011.Selection criteriaAll randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which stapled and handsewn colorectal anastomosis techniques were compared. Participants were adult patients undergoing elective colorectal anastomosis surgery. the interventions were endoluminal circular stapler and handsewn colorectal anastomosis surgery. Outcomes considered were 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; and j) hospital stay.Data collection and analysisData were independently analysed by the two review authors (CBN, SASL) and cross-checked. the methodological quality of each trial was assessed by the same two authors. After searching the literature for this update, no study was added to those in the previous version of this review. Details of randomizations (generation and concealment), blinding, whether an intention-to-treat analysis was done or not, and the number of patients lost to follow-up were recorded. the analysis of the risk of bias was updated according to the software Review Manager 5.1. the results of each RCT were summarized on an intention-to-treat basis in 2 x 2 tables for each outcome. External validity was defined by the characteristics of the participants, interventions and the outcomes. the RCTs were stratified according to the level of colorectal anastomosis. the risk difference (RD) method (random-effects model) and number needed to treat (NNT) for dichotomous outcome measures and weighted mean differences (WMD) for continuous outcomes measures, with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI), were presented in this review. Statistical heterogeneity was evaluated using a funnel plot and the Chi(2) test.Main resultsOf the 1233 patients enrolled in nine identified trials, 622 were treated with staples and 611 with manual suture. the following main results were obtained.a) Mortality, result based on 901 patients: RD -0.6%, 95% CI -2.8% to +1.6%.b) Overall dehiscence, result based on 1233 patients: RD 0.2%, 95% CI -5.0% to +5.3%.c) Clinical anastomotic dehiscence, result based on 1233 patients: RD -1.4%, 95% CI -5.2 to +2.3%.d) Radiological anastomotic dehiscence, result based on 825 patients: RD 1.2%, 95% CI -4.8% to +7.3%.e) Stricture, result based on 1042 patients: RD 4.6%, 95% CI 1.2% to 8.1%; NNT 17, 95% CI 12 to 31.f) Anastomotic haemorrhage, result based on 662 patients: RD 2.7%, 95% CI -0.1% to +5.5%.g) Reoperation, result based on 544 patients: RD 3.9%, 95% CI 0.3% to 7.4%.h) Wound infection, result based on 567 patients: RD 1.0%, 95% CI -2.2% to +4.3%.i) Anastomosis duration, result based on one study (159 patients): WMD -7.6 minutes, 95% CI -12.9 to -2.2 minutes.j) Hospital stay, result based on one study (159 patients): WMD 2.0 days, 95% CI -3.27 to +7.2 days.Authors' conclusionsThe evidence found was insufficient to demonstrate any superiority of stapled over handsewn techniques in colorectal anastomosis surgery, regardless of the level of anastomosis. There were no randomised clinical trials comparing these two types of anastomosis in elective conditions in the last decade. the relevance of this research question has possibly lost its strength where elective surgery is concerned. However, in risk situations, such as emergency surgery, trauma and inflammatory bowel disease, new clinical trials are needed.
Keywords Suture Techniques
Anastomosis, Surgical [methods]
Colon [surgery]
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Rectum [surgery]
Surgical Stapling
Adult
Humans
Language English
Sponsor Clinical Trials and Meta-analysis Unit, Federal University of São Paulo, Brazil
Gastroenterology Surgical Division, Federal University of São Paulo, Brazil
Centro Universitario de Volta Redonda (UniFOA), Brazil
Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)
Date 2012-01-01
Published in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell, n. 2, 51 p., 2012.
ISSN 1469-493X (Sherpa/Romeo, impact factor)
Publisher Wiley-Blackwell
Extent 51
Origin http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003144.pub2
Access rights Closed access
Type Review
Web of Science ID WOS:000301187200018
URI http://repositorio.unifesp.br/handle/11600/34422

Show full item record




File

File Size Format View

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Search


Browse

Statistics

My Account