Dataset Information

Single- versus two- layer intestinal anastomosis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

To compare single- with two- layer intestinal anastomosis after intestinal resection: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Methods

Randomized controlled trials comparing single- with two-layer intestinal anastomosis were identified using a systematic search of Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library Databases covering articles published from 1966 to 2004. Outcome of primary interest was postoperative leak. A risk ratio for trial outcomes and weighted pooled estimates for data were calculated. A fixed-effect model weighted using Mantel-Haenszel methods and a random-effect model using DerSimonian-Laird methods were employed.

Results

Six trials were analyzed, comprising 670 participants (single-layer group, n = 299; two-layer group, n = 371). Data on leaks were available from all included studies. Combined risk ratio using DerSimonian-Laird methods was 0.91 (95% CI = 0.49 to 1.69), and indicated no significant difference. Inter-study heterogeneity was significant (chi2 = 10.5, d.f. = 5, p = 0.06).

Conclusion

No evidence was found that two-layer intestinal anastomosis leads to fewer post-operative leaks than single layer. Considering duration of the anastomosis procedure and medical expenses, single-layer intestinal anastomosis appears to represent the optimal choice for most surgical situations.

SUBMITTER: Shikata S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC1373646 | biostudies-literature | 2006 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Single- versus two- layer intestinal anastomosis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Shikata Satoru S Yamagishi Hisakazu H Taji Yoshinori Y Shimada Toshihiko T Noguchi Yoshinori Y

BMC surgery 20060127

<h4>Background</h4>To compare single- with two- layer intestinal anastomosis after intestinal resection: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.<h4>Methods</h4>Randomized controlled trials comparing single- with two-layer intestinal anastomosis were identified using a systematic search of Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library Databases covering articles published from 1966 to 2004. Outcome of primary interest was postoperative leak. A risk ratio for trial outcomes and weighted pooled ...[more]

PMID: 16438733

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSelection of intracorporeal anastomosis (IA) or extracorporeal anastomosis (EA) in laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC) remains controversial. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of IA compared with EA in LRC patients.MethodsLiterature was searched systematically for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared IA with EA in LRC patients until May 2021. The eligible studies for risk of bias were assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Data were extracted and analysed for the following outcomes of interest: operative time, length of incision, nodal harvest, bowel function recovery, postoperative pain, postoperative complications (wound infection, anastomotic leak, ileus, obstruction, reoperation), death at 30 days, duration of hospital stay and 30-day readmission.ResultsFive RCTs, including a total of 559 patients, were eligible for meta-analysis. All of the trials reported adequate random sequence generation and allocation concealment. There were significantly better outcomes in the IA group than in the EA group in time to first flatus (mean difference (MD) -0.71 (95 per cent c.i. -1.12 to -0.31), P = 0.0005), time to first passage of stool (MD -0.53 (95 per cent c.i. -0.69 to -0.37), P < 0.00001), visual analogue scale of pain on postoperative day (POD) 3 (MD -0.76 (95 per cent c.i. -1.23 to -0.28), P = 0.002), POD 4 (MD -0.83 (95 per cent c.i. -1.46 to -0.20), P = 0.01), POD 5 (MD -0.60 (95 per cent c.i. -0.95 to -0.25), P = 0.0007), length of incision (MD -1.52 (95 per cent c.i. -2.30 to -0.74), P = 0.0001) and wound infection (relative risk 0.46 (95 per cent c.i. 0.23 to 0.91), P = 0.02). However, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in duration of hospital stay (P = 0.47), operative time (P = 0.07), number of lymph nodes harvested (P = 0.70), anastomotic leak (P = 0.88), postoperative ileus (P = 0.48), bleeding (P = 0.15), bowel obstruction (P = 0.24), reoperation (P = 0.34), readmission within 30 days (P = 0.26), and death (P = 0.70).ConclusionCompared with EA, IA shows a faster recovery of bowel function with fewer wound infections.

Project description:BackgroundThe application of side-to-end anastomosis (SEA) in sphincter-preserving resection (SPR) is controversial. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the safety and efficacy of SEA with colonic J-pouch (CJP) anastomosis, which had been proven effective in improving postoperative bowel function.MethodsThe protocol was registered in PROSPERO under number CRD42020206764. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched. The inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the safety or efficacy of SEA in comparison with CJP anastomosis. The outcomes included the pooled risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous variables and weighted mean differences (WMDs) for continuous variables. All outcomes were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI) by STATA software (Stata 14, Stata Corporation, TX, USA).ResultsA total of 864 patients from 10 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. Patients undergoing SEA had a higher defecation frequency at 12 months after SPR (WMD = 0.20; 95% CI, 0.14-0.26; P < 0.01) than those undergoing CJP anastomosis with low heterogeneity (I2 = 0%, P = 0.54) and a lower incidence of incomplete defecation at 3 months after surgery (RR = 0.28; 95% CI, 0.09-0.86; P = 0.03). A shorter operating time (WMD = - 17.65; 95% CI, - 23.28 to - 12.02; P < 0.01) was also observed in the SEA group without significant heterogeneity (I2 = 0%, P = 0.54). A higher anorectal resting pressure (WMD = 6.25; 95% CI, 0.17-12.32; P = 0.04) was found in the SEA group but the heterogeneity was high (I2 = 84.5%, P = 0.84). No significant differences were observed between the groups in terms of efficacy outcomes including defecation frequency, the incidence of urgency, incomplete defecation, the use of pads, enema, medications, anorectal squeeze pressure and maximum rectal volume, or safety outcomes including operating time, blood loss, the use of protective stoma, postoperative complications, clinical outcomes, and oncological outcomes.ConclusionsThe present evidence suggests that SEA is an effective anastomotic strategy to achieve similar postoperative bowel function without increasing the risk of complications compared with CJP anastomosis. The advantages of SEA include a shorter operating time, a lower incidence of incomplete defecation at 3 months after surgery, and better sphincter function. However, close attention should be paid to the long-term defecation frequency after SPR.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Carpal tunnel syndrome is a common compressive neuropathy of the median nerve. The efficacy and safety of endoscopic versus open carpal tunnel release remain controversial. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES:The purpose of this study was to determine whether endoscopic compared with open carpal tunnel release provides better symptom relief, validated outcome scores, short- and long-term strength, and/or digital sensibility; entails a differential risk of complications such as nerve injury, scar tenderness, pillar pain, and reoperation; allows an earlier return to work; and takes less operative time. METHODS:The English-language literature was searched using MEDLINE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Randomized controlled trials that compared endoscopic and open carpal tunnel release were included in the meta-analysis. Methodologic quality was assessed with the Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist, and a sensitivity analysis was performed. Symptom relief, Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ) scores, strength, digital sensibility, complications, reoperation, interval to return to work, and operative time were analyzed. Twenty-one randomized controlled trials containing 1859 hands were included. RESULTS:Endoscopically treated patients showed similar symptom relief and BCTQ scores; better early recovery of grip strength (mean difference [MD], 3.03 kg [0.08-5.98]; p = 0.04) and pinch strength (MD, 0.77 kg [0.33-1.22]; p < 0.001) but no advantage after 6 months; lower risk of scar tenderness (risk ratio [RR], 0.53 [0.35-0.82]; p = 0.005); higher risk of nerve injury (RR, 2.84 [1.08-7.46]; p = 0.03), most of which were transient neurapraxias. Similar risk of pillar pain and reoperation; an earlier return to work (MD, -8.73 days [-12.82 to -4.65]; p < 0.001); and reduced operative time (MD, -4.81 minutes [-9.23 to -0.39]; p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS:High-level evidence from randomized controlled trials indicates that endoscopic release allows earlier return to work and improved strength during the early postoperative period. Results at 6 months or later are similar according to current data except that patients undergoing endoscopic release are at greater risk of nerve injury and lower risk of scar tenderness compared with open release. While endoscopic release may appeal to patients who require an early return to work and activities, surgeons should be cognizant of its elevated incidence of transient nerve injury amid its similar overall efficacy to open carpal tunnel release. Additional research is required to define the learning curve of endoscopic release and clarify the influence of surgeon volume on its safety.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough laparoscopic surgery has been available for a long time and laparoscopic cholecystectomy has been performed universally, it is still not clear whether open appendectomy (OA) or laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is the most appropriate surgical approach to acute appendicitis. The purpose of this work is to compare the therapeutic effects and safety of laparoscopic and conventional "open" appendectomy by means of a meta-analysis.MethodsA meta-analysis was performed of all randomized controlled trials published in English that compared LA and OA in adults and children between 1990 and 2009. Calculations were made of the effect sizes of: operating time, postoperative length of hospital stay, postoperative pain, return to normal activity, resumption of diet, complications rates, and conversion to open surgery. The effect sizes were then pooled by a fixed or random-effects model.ResultsForty-four randomized controlled trials with 5292 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Operating time was 12.35 min longer for LA (95% CI: 7.99 to 16.72, p < 0.00001). Hospital stay after LA was 0.60 days shorter (95% CI: -0.85 to -0.36, p < 0.00001). Patients returned to their normal activity 4.52 days earlier after LA (95% CI: -5.95 to -3.10, p < 0.00001), and resumed their diet 0.34 days earlier(95% CI: -0.46 to -0.21, p < 0.00001). Pain after LA on the first postoperative day was significantly less (p = 0.008). The overall conversion rate from LA to OA was 9.51%. With regard to the rate of complications, wound infection after LA was definitely reduced (OR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.34 to 0.59, p < 0.00001), while postoperative ileus was not significantly reduced(OR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.57 to 1.47, p = 0.71). However, intra-abdominal abscess (IAA), intraoperative bleeding and urinary tract infection (UIT) after LA, occurred slightly more frequently(OR = 1.56, 95% CI: 1.01 to 2.43, p = 0.05; OR = 1.56, 95% CI: 0.54 to 4.48, p = 0.41; OR = 1.76, 95% CI: 0.58 to 5.29, p = 0.32).ConclusionLA provides considerable benefits over OA, including a shorter length of hospital stay, less postoperative pain, earlier postoperative recovery, and a lower complication rate. Furthermore, over the study period it was obvious that there had been a trend toward fewer differences in operating time for the two procedures. Although LA was associated with a slight increase in the incidence of IAA, intraoperative bleeding and UIT, it is a safe procedure. It may be that the widespread use of LA is due to its better therapeutic effect.

Dataset Information

Single- versus two- layer intestinal anastomosis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Single- versus two- layer intestinal anastomosis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets