+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Handsewn vs. stapled anastomoses in colon and rectal surgery: a meta-analysis

Handsewn vs. stapled anastomoses in colon and rectal surgery: a meta-analysis

Diseases of the Colon and Rectum 41(2): 180-189

Trials comparing handsewn with stapled anastomoses in colon and rectal surgery have not found statistical differences. Despite this, authors have differed in their conclusions as to which technique is superior. To help determine whether differences in patient outcomes are present, a meta-analysis of all trials was performed. A meta-analysis of all randomized, controlled trials assessing handsewn and stapled colon and rectal anastomoses was done using a fixed-effects model. Outcome variables were mortality, technical problems, leak rates, wound infections, strictures, and cancer recurrence. Outcomes were assessed for all anastomoses involving the colon and for the subset of colorectal anastomoses. Thirteen distinct trials met the inclusion criteria. Intraoperative technical problems were more likely to occur with stapled than with handsewn anastomoses for all anastomoses (P < 0.0001) and for colorectal anastomoses (P < 0.001). Strictures were also more common following stapled anastomoses (P = 0.015 for all anastomoses; P = 0.028 for colorectal anastomoses). All other outcome measures, including mortality, clinical and radiologic leak rates, and local cancer recurrence rates showed no difference between groups. Although intraoperative technical problems and postoperative strictures were more common with stapled anastomoses, other outcome measures showed no difference between groups. Thus, both techniques are effective, and the choice may be based on personal preference.

(PDF emailed within 1 workday: $29.90)

Accession: 046211625

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 9556242

Related references

Handsewn or stapled esophagogastric anastomoses after esophagectomy for cancer: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Diseases of the Esophagus 14(3-4): 212-217, 2002

Functional outcomes with handsewn versus stapled anastomoses in the treatment of ultralow rectal cancer. Updates in Surgery 70(1): 15-21, 2018

Handsewnvs.stapled anastomoses in colon and rectal surgery. Diseases of the Colon & Rectum 41(2): 180-189, 1998

Meta-Analysis of Anastomotic Leak Rates Following Hand-Sewn Suture Versus Stapled Anastomoses During Right Colon Surgery. Value in Health 17(3): A67-A68, 2014

Stapled ileal pouch anal anastomoses are safer than handsewn anastomoses in patients with ulcerative colitis. American Journal of Surgery 171(3): 320-323, 1996

A clinical comparison of handsewn vs. stapled anastomoses. Diseases of the Colon and Rectum 24(4): 234-235, 1981

Stapled versus handsewn methods for ileocolic anastomoses. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007(3): Cd004320, 2007

Stapled versus handsewn methods for ileocolic anastomoses. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011(9): Cd004320, 2011

Use of TC7 in the prevention of adhesions in handsewn and stapled colonic anastomoses. Diseases of the Colon and Rectum 37(5): 512-513, 1994

Meta-analysis of handsewn versus stapled reversal of loop ileostomy. Anz Journal of Surgery 85(4): 217-224, 2015

Comparison of stapled versus handsewn loop ileostomy closure: a meta-analysis. Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery 12(5): 939-944, 2007

A prospective randomized study comparing stapled with handsewn oesophagogastric anastomoses. Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh 41(1): 17-19, 1996

Stapled versus handsewn intestinal anastomosis in emergency laparotomy: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Surgery 157(4): 609-618, 2015

Colon and rectal anastomoses do not require routine drainage: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Annals of Surgery 229(2): 174-180, 1999

The incidence and outcome of pelvic sepsis following handsewn and stapled ileal pouch anal anastomoses. Surgery Today (Tokyo) 30(3): 223-227, 2000