4.3 Review

Hand-Sewn versus Stapled Closure of Loop Ileostomy: A Meta-Analysis

Journal

DIGESTIVE SURGERY
Volume 36, Issue 3, Pages 183-194

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000487310

Keywords

Ileostomy closure; Ileostomy reversal; Hand-sewn anastomosis; Stapled anastomosis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Individual trials comparing hand-sewn with stapled closure of loop ileostomy show different outcomes due to lack of statistical power. A systematic review, with a pooled analysis of results, might provide a more definitive answer. This review aimed to compare hand-sewn with stapled anastomotic technique for closure of a loop ileostomy and looked at the effect of bowel resection on the complication rates. Methodology: Relevant studies were identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane database. All randomised clinical trials, prospective and retrospective studies comparing hand-sewn with stapled closure of loop ileostomy were included. Results: Of the 4,917 patients in 15 identified studies, 3,406 had hand-sewn and 1,511 stapled anastomosis. There was no difference in the rate of anastomotic leak between the hand-sewn (2.93%, 55/1,877) and the stapled group (2.08%, 25/1,202) (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.43-1.54, p = 0.52, I-2 = 33%). The rate of small-bowel obstruction was higher in the hand-sewn group (7.03%, 231/3,284) compared to the stapled group (5.58%, 73/1,308; OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.51-0.92, p = 0.01, I-2 = 0%). There was no difference in the inci-dence of anastomotic leak and small-bowel obstruction in the hand-sewn anastomosis between patients with or without bowel resection. Conclusions: There was no significant difference in the rate of anastomotic leakage between the hand-sewn and stapled techniques. The rate of small-bowel obstruction was higher in the hand-sewn group. Performance of bowel resection does not significantly increase the incidence of anastomotic leak or small-bowel obstruction. (c) 2018 S. Karger AG, Basel

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