4.3 Review

Meta-analysis of handsewn versus stapled reversal of loop ileostomy

Journal

ANZ JOURNAL OF SURGERY
Volume 85, Issue 4, Pages 217-224

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/ans.12684

Keywords

handsewn anastomosis; ileostomy; reversal; stapled anastomosis

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BackgroundThe morbidity associated with closure of loop ileostomy (LI) may be attributed to the various surgical techniques employed for the closure. The purpose of this review was to review the hand-sutured (HS) versus the stapled anastomosis (SA) techniques, used in the reversal of LI. MethodsThe MEDLINE, PubMed, CINHAL, Cochrane library and Web of Knowledge databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and case-control trials (CCTs), evaluating HS and SA in reversal of LI. Data extraction with risk of bias assessment was followed by subgroup and pooled data meta-analysis where applicable per outcome. ResultsFour RCTs (HS: 321, SA: 328) and 10 CCTs (HS: 2808, SA: 1044) were identified, with a total of 4508 patients. Regardless of subgroup analysis, no difference was seen between the two techniques with regard to anastomotic leaks (P = 0.24, odds ratio (OR): 1.37, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.81-2.29) or re-operation. The stapled group showed a significantly lower rate of conservatively managed small bowel obstruction (SBO)/ ileus at 30 days (P < 0.001, OR: 2.27, 95% CI: 1.59-2.96) (P < 0.001) and SBO during combined short- and long-term follow-up (P < 0.001). The SA also showed significant shorter operative time (P = 0.02; WMD 11.52min), time to first bowel opening (P < 0.001; WMD 0.52 days) and length of hospital stay (P = 0.03; WMD 0.70 days). ConclusionThe stapled technique offers an advantage in terms of lower post-operative subacute SBO rates, a faster operative technique and shorter hospitalization times. These perceived benefits make it potentially superior to HS for the reversal of LI.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available