Is synchronous bowel anastomosis safe?

In this study, we investigated the effects of synchronous anastomosis on intestinal healing in experimental colonic resection. Sprague-Dawley rats were randomized into 3 groups; control (group I), single anastomosis (group II) and synchronous (double) anastomosis (group III). Single and proximal anastomoses were located 3 cm distal to caecum, and distal anastomoses were done 3 cm distal to them. On the 7th postoperative day, bursting pressure, hydroxyproline level and histology of the anastomotic site were assessed. Bursting pressures and hydroxyproline levels indicated that impaired healing of proximal anastomoses in group III was evident. Proximal anastomoses in group III had the lowest hydroxyproline value and bursting pressure level. Significant fibrosis was observed in the histological examination of distal anastomoses in group III. Double colonic anastomoses is not as safe as single anastomoses and involves additional risk. The healing of proximal anastomosis is significantly altered after experimental synchronous resection.     

A nickel–titanium memory-shape device for gastrojejunostomy: comparison of the compression anastomosis clip and a hand-sewn anastomosis

Background

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a compression anastomosis clip (CAC) for gastrojejunostomy and comparison of a novel technique with a hand-sewn anastomosis.

Methods

Sixty-six patients underwent gastrojejunostomy with the CAC or hand-sewn anastomosis. The time of bowel function recovery, the duration of nasogastric drainage, the time of initiation of oral feeding, the duration of postoperative hospital stay, the time needed to expel the clip, and the observation of any complications were recorded.

Results

Neither group had anastomotic complications such as leakage or obstruction. Anastomosis time was shorter in the CAC group than in the control group (P < 0.01). The mean time of clip expulsion was 15.1 ± 6.04 d. There was no statistical difference in postoperative results between the two groups. There was a moderate positive correlation between the day of first bowel movement and the day of clip expulsion (r = 0.536) and a strong correlation between the duration of nasogastric drainage and the day of clip expulsion (r = 0.881).

Conclusions

The method of using a CAC appeared to be safe, easy, inexpensive, and less time consuming. It should be taken into consideration that intra-abdominal complications may cause delayed CAC expulsion.     

Is “functional end-to-end anastomosis” really functional? A review of the literature on stapled anastomosis using linear staplers

Purposes

Anastomosis is one of the basic skills of a gastrointestinal surgeon. Stapling devices are widely used because stapled anastomosis (SA) can shorten operation times. Antiperistaltic stapled side-to-side anastomosis (SSSA) using linear staplers is a popular SA technique that is often referred to as “functional end-to-end anastomosis (FEEA).” The term “FEEA” has spread without any definite validation of its “function.” The aim of this review is to show the heterogeneity of SA and conventional hand-sewn end-to-end anastomosis (HEEA) and to advocate the renaming of “FEEA.”

Methods

We conducted a narrative review of the literature on SSSA. We reviewed the literature on ileocolic and small intestinal anastomosis in colonic cancer, Crohn’s disease and ileostomy closure due to the simplicity of the technique.

Results

The superiority of SSSA in comparison to HEEA has been demonstrated in previous clinical studies concerning gastrointestinal anastomosis. Additionally, experimental studies have shown the differences between the two anastomotic techniques on peristalsis and the intestinal bacteria at the anastomotic site.

Conclusions

SSSA and HEEA affect the postoperative clinical outcome, electrophysiological peristalsis, and bacteriology in different manners; no current studies have shown the functional equality of SSSA and HEEA. However, the use of the terms “functional end-to-end anastomosis” and/or “FEEA” could cause confusion for surgeons and researchers and should therefore be avoided.

     

The failed gastrointestinal anastomosis: an inevitable catastrophe?

BACKGROUND: There is a great deal of conflicting data regarding risk factors for anastomotic leakage, with most studies being small and looking only at anastomoses performed at one level of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. Surgeons have looked at patient and technical variables with inconsistent findings. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the incidence, possible predictive factors, and results of treatment of anastomotic dehiscence in patients undergoing operations at all levels of the GI tract. STUDY DESIGN: We evaluated the records of 2,842 patients undergoing esophagogastrectomy, total or partial gastrectomy, enterectomy, and partial or subtotal colectomy over a 12-year period. Complete demographic data, comorbidity, and details regarding anastomotic technique were collected on all patients sustaining leaks along with diagnostic methods used, treatment modalities, and outcomes data. Using age and gender-matched case control methodology, we compared patients sustaining an anastomotic leak to those undergoing successful anastomoses. RESULTS: Fifty-one of 2,842 patients (1.8%), ranging from 1.1% of enterectomy patients to 4.8% of total gastrectomy patients, sustained an anastomotic dehiscence. Foregut procedures were accompanied by a significantly increased rate of leakage, and depending on location, diagnosis was made between the 6th and 9th postoperative day. For each procedure, deaths from factors other than leakage far exceeded deaths from leaks. Standard risk stratifiers did not predict occurrence of leakage. Overall, 24% of patients sustaining a leak died, and this complication necessitated multiple reoperations and significantly increased length of hospital stay. CONCLUSIONS: In view of these findings, standard preoperative strategies to prepare these patients for operation may prove unsuccessful, because minimizing the incidence of anastomotic leaks will have little overall impact on survival. In addition, efforts to accomplish early hospital discharge may prove hazardous, because many of these patients manifest their leaks later in the postoperative period than is generally assumed. Improved management of GI tract disruption, including aggressive attempts at diagnosis, ICU care, antibiotics, and nutritional support may further increase survival in these patients.     

Stapled functional end-to-end anastomosis in Crohn’s disease

(Received for publication on Apr. 13, 1998; accepted on Nov. 6, 1998)     

Laparoscopic ileal pouch–anal anastomosis reduces abdominal and pelvic adhesions

Background  Postoperative adhesions are an expected outcome for the majority of open abdominal operations, occurring in more than 90% of cases. Adhesions are responsible for more than 75% of small bowel obstruction cases. This study aimed to evaluate adhesions to the anterior abdominal wall and adnexal organs after laparoscopic ileal-pouch anal anastomosis (IPAA). Methods  Patients who underwent laparoscopic IPAA for ulcerative colitis had laparoscopic evaluation of adhesions at loop ileostomy closure for assessment of adhesions to the anterior abdominal wall and for adhesions to the adnexae in the case of women. Adhesions to the adnexae were quantified using the American Fertility Society adhesion score. Data were maintained prospectively. Results  In this study, 34 patients (21 women) ranging in age from 19 to 78 years (median, 36 years) underwent laparoscopic IPAA. With regard to anterior abdominal wall adhesions, 23 patients (68%) had no adhesions to the anterior abdominal wall, and the remaining 11 patients had few adhesions (filmy, avascular). No patients had dense adhesions to the abdominal wall. Of the 21 women, 15 (71%) had no adnexal adhesions, 5 had filmy adhesions enclosing less than one-third one adnexa, and 1 had filmy adhesions enclosing one-third to two-thirds of one adnexa. No patient had adhesions affecting both adnexae. Conclusions  Laparoscopic IPAA results in few adhesions to the anterior abdominal wall or to gynecologic organs. These adhesions were significantly fewer than previously reported for open operations with or without the use of a glycerol hyaluronate/carboxymethylcellulose bioresorbable (GHA/CMC) adhesion barrier.     

Which distal anastomosis should be used in PTFE femoro-tibial bypass?

AIM: The PTFE prosthesis represents an alternative to the autologous saphenous vein in femoro-tibial revascularization for limb salvage in the absence of venous material in the patient. The aim of our study is to confirm the validity of PTFE revascularization and determine the best distal anastomosis in terms of patency using 3 different techniques. We carried out a retrospective analysis, evaluating patients who underwent PTFE femoro-tibial revascularization for critical ischemia. METHODS: Between January 1998 and June 2002 we performed 46 femoro-tibial revascularizations at the Vascular Surgery Division of the Poliambulanza Hospital in Brescia using a PTFE prosthesis, from a total of 192 infrainguinal revascularizations (24%). All patients presented a critical ischemia, with trophic lesions or gangrene in 76% of the cases (35/46) and who were previously treated unsuccessfully with medical therapy. Seventeen cases (36%) were a redo bypass due to previously failed revascularization. In all cases the saphenous vein was not available due to past peripheral or coronary revascularization (45%), saphenectomy (20%) or inadequate diameter (35%). The distal anastomoses were performed on the peroneal artery in 29 cases, on the anterior tibial artery in 14 cases and on the posterior tibial artery in 3 cases. The distal anastomosis was performed by interposing a segment of vein between the prosthesis and the tibial artery in 12 cases; in 22 cases the interposition was performed using a vein patch, and in the remaining 12 cases a PTFE prosthesis provided with a premanufactured expanded anastomosis (Distaflo(c)) was used. RESULTS: Average follow-up was 22.5 months (range: 3-48 months). The primary and secondary patency rate at 48 months, calculated with the Life table method, was 35% and 47%, respectively. Limb salvage in the same time period was 56%. Depending on the anastomosis performed (Distaflo(c), vein patch, distal vein) we obtained a secondary patency rate of 31%, 62%, and 44% respectively after 48 months with a significant difference between distal vein patch and the other two anastomoses (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The PTFE bypass on the tibial artery performed for limb salvage in the absence of a saphenous vein represents a valid alternative to other types of prostheses with a patency percentage that is acceptable in the medium term. Within our study population, anastomosis by vein patch interposition gave better results than other types of tibial anastomosis.