Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Compression versus hand-sewn and stapled anastomosis in colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

  • Review
  • Published:
Techniques in Coloproctology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Anastomotic leaks are a feared complication of colorectal resections and novel techniques that have the potential to decrease them are still sought. This study aimed to compare the anastomotic leak rates in patients undergoing compression anastomoses versus hand-sewn or stapled anastomoses. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing outcomes of compression versus conventional (hand-sewn and stapled) colorectal anastomosis were collected from MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library. The quality of the RCTs and the potential risk of bias were assessed. Pooled odds ratios (OR) were calculated for categorical outcomes and weighted mean differences for continuous data. Ten RCTs were included, comprising 1969 patients (752 sutured, 225 stapled, and 992 compression anastomoses). Most used the biofragmentable anastomotic ring. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of anastomotic leak rates (OR 0.80, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.47, 1.37; p = 0.42), stricture (OR 0.54: 95 % CI 0.18, 1.64; p = 0.28) or mortality (OR 0.70; 95 % CI 0.39, 1.26; p = 0.24). Compression anastomosis was associated with an earlier return of bowel function: 1.02 (95 % CI 1.37, 0.66) days earlier (p < 0.001) and a shorter postoperative stay; 1.13 (95 % CI 1.52, 0.74) days shorter (p < 0.001), but significant heterogeneity among studies was observed. There was an increased risk of postoperative bowel obstruction in the compression group (OR 1.87; 95 % CI 1.07, 3.26; p = 0.03). There was no significant difference in wound-related and general complications, or length of surgery. Compression devices do not appear to provide an advantage over conventional techniques in fashioning colorectal anastomoses and are associated with an increased risk of bowel obstruction.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Peeters KC, Tollenaar RA, Marijnen CA et al (2005) Risk factors for anastomotic failure after total mesorectal excision of rectal cancer. Br J Surg 92:211–216

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hyman N, Manchester TL, Osler T, Burns B, Cataldo PA (2007) Anastomotic leaks after intestinal anastomosis: it’s later than you think. Ann Surg 245:254–258

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Slieker JC, Daams F, Mulder IM, Jeekel J, Lange JF (2013) Systematic review of the technique of colorectal anastomosis. JAMA Surg 148:190–201

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Neutzling CB, Lustosa SA, Proenca IM, da Silva EM, Matos D (2012) Stapled versus handsewn methods for colorectal anastomosis surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2:CD003144

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ballantyne GH (1984) The experimental basis of intestinal suturing. Effect of surgical technique, inflammation, and infection on enteric wound healing. Dis Colon Rectum 27:61–71

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Aggarwal R, Darzi A (2005) Compression anastomoses revisited. J Am Coll Surg 201:965–971

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kaidar-Person O, Rosenthal RJ, Wexner SD, Szomstein S, Person B (2008) Compression anastomosis: history and clinical considerations. Am J Surg 195:818–826

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Zbar AP, Nir Y, Weizman A, Rabau M, Senagore A (2012) Compression anastomoses in colorectal surgery: a review. Tech Coloproctol 16:187–199

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Corman ML, Prager ED, Hardy TG Jr, Bubrick MP (1989) Comparison of the Valtrac biofragmentable anastomosis ring with conventional suture and stapled anastomosis in colon surgery. Results of a prospective, randomized clinical trial. Dis Colon Rectum 32:183–187

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Forde KA, McLarty AJ, Tsai J, Ghalili K, Delany HM (1993) Murphy’s Button revisited. Clinical experience with the biofragmentable anastomotic ring. Ann Surg 217:78–81

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Massi G, Di Castro A, Brocato R, Adami EA, Biancari F (1997) Biofragmentable anastomosis ring in emergency surgery. Ann Chir Gynaecol 86:357–359

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Buchberg BS, Masoomi H, Bergman H, Mills SD, Stamos MJ (2011) The use of a compression device as an alternative to hand-sewn and stapled colorectal anastomoses: Is three a crowd? J Gastroint Surg 15:304–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J et al (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 339:b2700

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Higgings JPT, Sterne JAC (2011) Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green, S. (ed) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration

  15. Bubrick MP, Corman ML, Cahill CJ, Hardy TG Jr, Nance FC, Shatney CH (1991) Prospective, randomized trial of the biofragmentable anastomosis ring. The BAR Investigational Group. Am J Surg 161:136–142

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Cahill CJ, Betzler M, Gruwez JA, Jeekel J, Patel JC, Zederfeldt B (1989) Sutureless large bowel anastomosis: European experience with the biofragmentable anastomosis ring. Br J Surg 76:344–347

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Chen S, Yang B, He JH, Zhang YC, Lai DM (2009) Randomized trial on the application of biofragmentable anastomosis ring in intestinal anastomosis. Chin Med J 122:1755–1758

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Dyess DL, Curreri PW, Ferrara JJ (1990) A new technique for sutureless intestinal anastomosis. A prospective, randomized, clinical trial. Am Surg 56:71–75

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Galizia G, Lieto E, Castellano P et al (1999) Comparison between the biofragmentable anastomosis ring and stapled anastomoses in the extraperitoneal rectum: a prospective, randomized study. Int J Colorectal Dis 14:286–290

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Gullichsen R, Havia T, Ovaska J, Rantala A (1992) Colonic anastomosis using the biofragmentable anastomotic ring and manual suture: a prospective, randomized study. Br J Surg 79:578–580

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Pahlman L, Ejerblad S, Graf W et al (1997) Randomized trial of a biofragmentable bowel anastomosis ring in high-risk colonic resection. Br J Surg 84:1291–1294

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Seow-Choen F, Eu KW (1994) Circular staplers versus the biofragmentable ring for colorectal anastomosis: a prospective randomized study. Br J Surg 81:1790–1791

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Nudelman I, Fuko V, Waserberg N et al (2005) Colonic anastomosis performed with a memory-shaped device. Am J Surg 190:434–438

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Murphy JB (1892) Cholecysto-intestinal, gastro-intestinal, entero-intestinal anastomosis, and approximation without sutures. Med Rec (NY) 42:665–676

    Google Scholar 

  25. Kanshin NN, Lytkin MI, Knysh VI, Klur V, Khamidov AI (1984) First experience with application of compression anastomoses with the apparatus AKA-2 in operations on the large intestine. Vestn Khir Im I I Grek 132:52–57

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Hardy TG Jr, Pace WG, Maney JW, Katz AR, Kaganov AL (1985) A biofragmentable ring for sutureless bowel anastomosis. An experimental study. Dis Colon Rectum 28:484–490

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Nudelman IL, Fuko VV, Morgenstern S, Giler S, Lelcuk S (2000) Gastrointestinal anastomosis with the nickel-titanium double ring. World J Surg 24:874–877

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Nudelman I, Fuko V, Rubin M, Lelcuk S (2004) A nickel-titanium memory-shape device for colonic anastomosis in laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 18:1085–1089

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Nudelman IL, Fuko V, Greif F, Lelcuk S (2002) Colonic anastomosis with the nickel–titanium temperature-dependent memory-shape device. Am J Surg 183:697–701

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Masoomi H, Luo R, Mills S, Carmichael JC, Senagore AJ, Stamos MJ (2013) Compression anastomosis ring device in colorectal anastomosis: a review of 1180 patients. Am J Surg 205:447–451

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Tulchinsky H, Kashtan H, Rabau M, Wasserberg N (2010) Evaluation of the NiTi shape memory BioDynamix ColonRing in colorectal anastomosis: first in human multi-center study. Int J Colorectal Dis 25:1453–1458

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Thompson SK, Chang EY, Jobe BA (2006) Clinical review: healing in gastrointestinal anastomoses, part I. Microsurgery 26:131–136

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Bundy CA, Jacobs DM, Zera RT, Bubrick MP (1993) Comparison of bursting pressure of sutured, stapled and BAR anastomoses. Int J Colorectal Dis 8:1–3

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Rullier E, Laurent C, Garrelon JL, Michel P, Saric J, Parneix M (1998) Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after resection of rectal cancer. Br J Surg 85:355–358

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Thiede A, Geiger D, Dietz UA et al (1998) Overview on compression anastomoses: biofragmentable anastomosis ring multicenter prospective trial of 1666 anastomoses. World J Surg 22:78–86; discussion 87

  36. Ghitulescu GA, Morin N, Jetty P, Belliveau P (2003) Revisiting the biofragmentable anastomotic ring: Is it safe in colonic surgery? Can J Surg 46:92–98

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK

    A. A. P. Slesser, G. Pellino, D. Cocker, C. Kontovounisios, S. Rasheed & P. P. Tekkis

  2. Department of Colorectal Surgery, Royal Marsden Hospital, Fulham Road, London, UK

    A. A. P. Slesser, G. Pellino, C. Kontovounisios, S. Rasheed & P. P. Tekkis

  3. Department of Surgery, St Mary’s Hospital, Imperial College London, London, UK

    O. Shariq

  4. Department of Surgery, Charing Cross Hospital, London, UK

    D. Cocker

  5. Department of Surgery and Cancer, Royal Marsden Hospital, Imperial College London, Fulham Road and Chelsea and Westminster Campus, 369 Fulham Road, London, SW10 9NH, UK

    P. P. Tekkis

Authors
  1. A. A. P. Slesser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. G. Pellino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. O. Shariq
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. D. Cocker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. C. Kontovounisios
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. S. Rasheed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. P. P. Tekkis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P. P. Tekkis.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest

Ethical approval

The present paper as a review of the literature was exempt from approval.

Informed consent

For this review of literature informed consent was not required.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Slesser, A.A.P., Pellino, G., Shariq, O. et al. Compression versus hand-sewn and stapled anastomosis in colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Tech Coloproctol 20, 667–676 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-016-1521-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-016-1521-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation