[Intestinal anastomosis in urology: comparison of methods].
BACKGROUND
Three different intestinal anastomosis were compared during reconstructive urologic surgery; we evaluated time, cost and incidence of complications.


METHODS
From November 1993 to February 1997, 45 patients (43 males and 2 females) were carried out ileal resection to fashion 30 ileal neobladder, 8 ileal conduit and 7 augmentation ileocystoplasty. The patients were randomized in 3 groups; in the first the intestinal continuity was performed by B.A.R.; the second one was treated by GLA stapling device; the last underwent a manual suture with interrupted stiches double layer (vicryl).


RESULTS
The mean follow-up was 18 months. The mean time of canalization was 6.3 days. The complications were: one intestinal subocclusion (group 1); one abdominal wound infection (group 2); one anastomotic leak and one pulmonary embolism (group 3). The mean time of anastomosis was 18, 12 and 39 minutes respectively. The average total cost was 915,000 lire in the group 1; 1,280,000 lire in the group 2; 632,000 lire in the group 3.


CONCLUSIONS
We believe that Biofragmentable. Anastomosis Ring (B.A.R.) is more convenient and advisable in reconstructive urologic surgery, for their quickness, effectiveness and final total cost.
Diana
M
M
Divisione di Urologia, Ospedale Cristo Re, Roma.
Schettini
M
M
Gallucci
M
M
D000714:Anastomosis, Surgical / Q000379:methods; D005260:Female; D017721:Hospital Costs; D006801:Humans; D007081:Ileostomy; D007082:Ileum / Q000601:surgery*; D008297:Male; D013528:Surgical Staplers; D014547:Urinary Diversion / Q000379:methods
Anastomosi intestinali in urologia: tecniche a confronto.