Diseases of the Colon & Rectum

, Volume 34, Issue 6, pp 442–448 | Cite as

Advantages of handsewn over stapled bowel anastomosis

  • Adam J. Dziki
  • Mark D. Duncan
  • John W. Harmon
  • Nirmal Saini
  • Richard A. Malthaner
  • Karim S. Trad
  • Marie T. Fernicola
  • Fawaz Hakki
  • Richard M. Ugarte
Original Contributions
  • 95 Downloads

Abstract

Bowel anastomoses are conventionally performed using a handsewn technique or a stapling device. Each has potential benefits and disadvantages. The most clinically significant complications of the bowel anastomosis are anastomotic leakage and stricture formation. The indices of healing and tissue cohesion were compared dynamically over time in 24 dogs randomized to undergo either a standard two-layer handsewn anastomosis or a stapled anastomosis with the Premium CEEATM(United States Surgical Corporation, Norwalk, CT). Animals were sacrificed at 1, 4, 7, and 28 days postoperatively. Each anastomosis was evaluated for anastomotic index, burst pressure, collagen content, and histologic appearance. The anastomotic index was similar on postoperative day (POD) 1, 4, and 7; but on day 28 all handsewn anastomoses had larger diameters than the widest CEEATManastomosis. Burst pressure was higher in handsewn anastomoses at all intervals. Collagen content tended to be higher on POD 7 in the CEEATManastomoses. Histological evaluation showed more complete epithelialization and less inflammation in handsewn anastomoses on POD 28. The higher level of collagen in the CEEATManastomoses on POD 7 may be implicated in the tendency toward stricture formation found with this type of anastomosis. This study demonstrates that the greater speed and ease of the stapled anastomosis is offset by the greater strength, reduced tendency to stricture, and more complete healing of the handsewn anastomosis.

Key words

Colorectal surgery Suture techniques Surgical anastomosis Surgical staplers Dogs 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Lembert A. Nouveau proceed d'enterorraphie. Repertoire General d'Anatomie et de Physiologie Pathologique 1826;2:3.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Halsted WS. Circular suturing of an intestine: an experimental study. Am J Med Sci 1887;94:436–61.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Connell ME. An experimental contribution looking to an improved technique in enterorrhaphy, whereby the number of knots is reduced to two or even one. Med Rec 1892;42:335–7.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ravitch MM, Steichen FM. Staples in gastrointestinal surgery. In: Maingot R, ed. Abdominal operations. 7th ed. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1981:2197–210.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ravitch MM, Rivarola A. Enteroanstomosis with an automatic instrument. Surgery 1966;59:270–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ravitch MM, Steichen FM. Technics of staple suturing in the gastrointestinal tract. Ann Surg 1972;175:815–37.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hardy TG Jr, Pace WG, Maney JW, Katz AR, Kaganov AL. A biofragmentable ring for sutureless bowel anastomosis. An experimental study. Dis Colon Rectum 1985;28:484–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Malthaner RA, Hakki FZ, Saini N, Andrews BL, Harmon JW. Anastomotic compression button: a new mechanical device for sutureless bowel anastomosis. Dis Colon Rectum 1990;33:291–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rosati R, Rebuffat C, Pezzuoli G. A new mechanical device for circular compression anastomosis: preliminary results of animal and clinical experimentation. Ann Surg 1988;207:245–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Denans FN. Nouveau proceed pour la guerison des plaies des intestins. Recueil de la societe Royale de Medecine de Marseille: Imprimerie D'Archard, Tome I:1827;127–31.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Murphy JB. Cholecysto-intestinal, gastro-intestinal, entero-intestinal anastomosis, and approximation without sutures (original research). Med Rec 1892;42:665–76.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Luchtefeld MA, Milsom JW, Senagore A, Surrell JA, Mazier WP. Colorectal anastomotic stenosis: results of a survey of the ASCRS membership. Dis Colon Rectum 1989;32:733–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Graffner H, Andersson L, Lowenhielm P, Walther B. The healing process of anastomoses of the colon: a comparative study using single, double-layer or stapled anastomosis. Dis Colon Rectum 1984;27:767–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kissin MW, Cox AG, Wilkins RA, Kark AE. The fate of the EEA stapled anastomosis: a clinico-radiological study of 38 patients. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1985;67:20–2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    McGinn FP, Gartell PC, Clifford PC, Brunton FJ. Staples or sutures for low colorectal anastomoses: a prospective randomized trial. Br J Surg 1985;72:603–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Waxman BP. Large bowel anastomoses. II. The circular staplers. Br J Surg 1983;70:64–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Everett WG, Friend PJ, Forty J. Comparison of stapling and hand-suture for left-sided large bowel anastomosis. Br J Surg 1986;73:345–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Smith LE. Anastomosis with EEA stapler after anterior colonic resection. Dis Colon Rectum 1981;24:236–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Goligher JC, Graham NG, De Dombal FT. Anastomotic dehiscence after anterior resection of rectum and sigmoid. Br J Surg 1970;57:109–18.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bubrick MP, Lundeen JW, Hitchcock CR. A comparative radiographic study of low anterior colon anastomoses in dogs. Surgery 1981;89:454–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sauven P, Playforth MJ, Evans M, Pollock AV. Early infective complications and later recurrent cancer in stapled colonic anastomoses. Dis Colon Rectum 1989;32:33–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Antonsen HK, Kronborg O. Early complications after low anterior resection for rectal cancer using the EEA® stapling device: a prospective trial. Dis Colon Rectum 1987;30:579–83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Accordi F, Sogno O, Carniato S,et al. Endoscopic treatment of stenosis following stapler anastomosis. Dis Colon Rectum 1987;30:647–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Woessner JF Jr. The determination of hydroxyproline in tissue and protein samples containing small proportions of this imino acid. Arch Biochem Biophys 1961;93:440–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Brain J, Lorber M, Fiddian-Green RG. Rectal membrane: an unusual complication following use of the circular stapling instrument for colorectal anastomosis. Surgery 1981;89:271–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kozol RA, Mulligan M, Downes RJ, Forouhar FA, Kreutzer DL. Early colonic anastomotic edema: evaluation of stapledvs. hand-sewn anastomoses. Dis Colon Rectum 1988;31:503–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Polglase AL, Hughes ES, McDermott FT, Pihl E, Burke FR. A comparison of end-to-end staple and suture colorectal anastomosis in the dog. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1981;152:792–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lehur PA, Khosrovaninejad C. La vascularisation colique n'est pas alteree par l'agrafage circulaire: etude angiographique chez le chien. Ann Chir 1989;43:315–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Buchmann P, Schneider K, Gebbers J-O. Fibrosis of experimental colonic anastomosis in dogs after EEA stapling or suturing. Dis Colon Rectum 1983;26:217–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hendriks T, Vereecken TH, Hesp WL, Schillings PH, de Boer HH. Loss of collagen from experimental intestinal anastomoses: early events. Exp Mol Pathol 1985;42:411–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Khoury GA, Waxman BP. Large bowel anastomoses. I. The healing process and sutured anastomoses: a review. Br J Surg 1983;70:61–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Jiborn H, Ahonen J, Zederfeldt B. Healing of experimental colonic anastomoses. III. Collagen metabolism in the colon after left colon resection. Am J Surg 1980;139:398–405.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33-.
    Templeton JL, McKelvey ST. Low colorectal anastomoses: an experimental assessment of two sutured and two stapled techniques. Dis Colon Rectum 1985;28:38–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Cronin K, Jackson D, Dunphy JE. Changing bursting strength and collagen content of the healing colon. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1968;126:747–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adam J. Dziki
    • 1
    • 2
  • Mark D. Duncan
    • 1
    • 2
  • John W. Harmon
    • 1
    • 2
  • Nirmal Saini
    • 1
    • 2
  • Richard A. Malthaner
    • 1
    • 2
  • Karim S. Trad
    • 1
    • 2
  • Marie T. Fernicola
    • 1
    • 2
  • Fawaz Hakki
    • 1
    • 2
  • Richard M. Ugarte
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Departments of Surgery and Pathology, Veterans Administration Medical CenterGeorge Washington UniversitUSA
  2. 2.Georgetown UniversityWashington, DC

Personalised recommendations