Comparison between the biofragmentable anastomosis ring and stapled anastomoses in the extraperitoneal rectum: a prospective, randomized study.
Serious complications can be carried by intestinal anastomoses, particularly in the distal and proximal part of the gastrointestinal tract. The biofragmentable anastomosis ring (BAR) has been shown to be a safe anastomotic technique, but its clinical applicability in the extraperitoneal rectum has not yet been completely established. This study compared BAR anastomoses and stapled anastomoses in the middle rectum. Thirty-six consecutive patients initially suitable for elective colorectal anastomosis in the middle rectum were enrolled into this study. All patients had intraperitoneal rectum carcinoma, and 31 underwent a colorectal anastomosis in the middle extraperitoneal rectum. They were randomly allocated to a stapled technique or BAR anastomosis. Intraoperative findings and technical drawbacks, tumor behavior, and postoperative course were recorded. All patients were followed up, and late stenosis rate was investigated by endoscopy. The procedure was carried out in each of the 15 patients randomized to receiving a BAR anastomosis. No major difficulties were encountered, and the time needed was even less than that required for a stapled anastomosis. One patient in the stapled group had an early bleeding that required a further laparotomy. No significant differences in postoperative complications were noted between the two groups, although one patient with stapled anastomosis experienced a clinical leakage that needed loop colostomy. Biofragmentability was regular; buttons were eliminated in 3 weeks without any bowel disturbance. BAR ring insertion in the deep pelvis did not produce a shorter colonic resection. The late stenosis rate was similar between the groups. This study shows that in extraperitoneal middle rectum BAR anastomosis is as feasible and safe as the stapled method. The latter is more expensive, and manual suture is more difficult. Therefore the BAR is now the method of choice for this anastomosis in the authors' unit.
Galizia
G
G
Second University of Naples School of Medicine, II Policlinico Ed. 17, Via S. Pansini, 5, I-80131 Naples, Italy, galizia@unina.it
Lieto
E
E
Castellano
P
P
Pelosio
L
L
Imperatore
V
V
Canfora
F
F
Pignatelli
C
C
D020341:Absorbable Implants; D000230:Adenocarcinoma / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000601:surgery*; D000368:Aged; D000714:Anastomosis, Surgical; D013505:Digestive System Surgical Procedures / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods*; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D011336:Probability; D011446:Prospective Studies; D012004:Rectal Neoplasms / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000601:surgery*; D012007:Rectum / Q000601:surgery*; D018709:Statistics, Nonparametric; D013536:Suture Techniques; D013537:Sutures; D016896:Treatment Outcome