4.4 Review

Systematic review and meta-analysis of published, randomized, controlled trials comparing suture anastomosis to stapled anastomosis for ileostomy closure

Journal

TECHNIQUES IN COLOPROCTOLOGY
Volume 17, Issue 6, Pages 631-639

Publisher

SPRINGER-VERLAG ITALIA SRL
DOI: 10.1007/s10151-013-1027-6

Keywords

Suture anastomosis; Stapled anastomosis; Defunctioning ileostomy; Anastomotic leak

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The objective of this article is to systematically analyze the randomized, controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of suture anastomosis (SUA) versus stapled anastomosis (STA) in patients undergoing ileostomy closure. Randomized, controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of SUA versus STA in patients undergoing ileostomy closure were analyzed using RevMan(A (R)), and combined outcomes were expressed as odds risk ratio (OR) and standardized mean difference (SMD). Four randomized, controlled trials that recruited 645 patients were retrieved from electronic databases. There were 327 patients in the STA group and 318 patients in the SUA group. There was significant heterogeneity among included trials. Operative time (SMD -1.02; 95 % CI -1.89, -0.15; z = 2.29; p < 0.02) was shorter following STA compared to SUA. In addition, risk of small bowel obstruction (OR 0.54; 95 % confidence interval (CI), 0.30, 0.95; z = 2.13; p < 0.03) was lower in the STA group. Risk of anastomotic leak (OR 0.87; 95 % CI 0.12, 6.33; z = 0.14; p = 0.89), surgical site infection, reoperation and readmission were similar following STA and SUA in patients undergoing ileostomy closure. Length of hospital stay was also similar between STA and SUA groups. In ileostomy closure, STA was associated with shorter operative time and lower risk of postoperative small bowel obstruction. However, STA and SUA were similar in terms of anastomotic leak, surgical site infection, readmission, reoperations and length of hospital stay.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available