Skip to main content
Log in

Handsewnvs. stapled anastomoses in colon and rectal surgery

A meta-analysis

  • Original Contributions
  • Published:
Diseases of the Colon & Rectum

Abstract

PURPOSE: Trials comparing handsewn with stapled anastomoses in colon and rectal surgery have not found statistical differences. Despite this, authors have differed in their conclusions as to which technique is superior. To help determine whether differences in patient outcomes are present, a meta-analysis of all trials was performed. METHOD: A meta-analysis of all randomized, controlled trials assessing handsewn and stapled colon and rectal anastomoses was done using a fixed-effects model. Outcome variables were mortality, technical problems, leak rates, wound infections, strictures, and cancer recurrence. Outcomes were assessed for all anastomoses involving the colon and for the subset of colorectal anastomoses. RESULTS: Thirteen distinct trials met the inclusion criteria. Intraoperative technical problems were more likely to occur with stapled than with handsewn anastomoses for all anastomoses (P<0.0001) and for colorectal anastomoses (P<0.001). Strictures were also more common following stapled anastomoses (P=0.015 for all anastomoses;P=0.028 for colorectal anastomoses). All other outcome measures, including mortality, clinical and radiologic leak rates, and local cancer recurrence rates showed no difference between groups. CONCLUSION: Although intraoperative technical problems and postoperative strictures were more common with stapled anastomoses, other outcome measures showed no difference between groups. Thus, both techniques are effective, and the choice may be based on personal preference.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. The French Associations for Surgical Research, Fingerhut A, Elhadad A, Hay JM, Lacaine F, Flamant Y. Infraperitoneal colorectal anastomosis: hand-sewnversus circular staples. A controlled clinical trial. Surgery 1995;116:484–90.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Docherty JG, McGregor JR, Akyol AM, Murray GD, Galloway DJ, West of Scotland and Highland Anastomosis Study Group. Comparison of manually constructed and stapled anastomoses in colorectal surgery. Ann Surg 1995;221:176–84.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Moran BJ. Stapling instruments for intestinal anastomoses in colorectal surgery. Br J Surg 1996;83:902–9.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Roberts PL, Williamson WA, Sanders LB. Pitfalls in use of stapler in gastrointestinal tract surgery. Surg Clin North Am 1991;71:1247–57.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Chassin JL, Rifkind KM, Turner JW. Errors and pitfalls in stapling gastrointestinal tract anastomoses. Surg Clin North Am 1984;64:441–59.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Solomon JF, McLeod RS. Clinical studies in surgical journals—have we improved? Dis Colon Rectum 1993;36:43–8.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Demets DL. Methods for combining randomized clinical trials: strengths and limitations. Stat Med 1987;6:341–8.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Rosenthal R. Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Breslow NE, Day NE. Statistical methods in cancer research. Vol. 1. The analysis of case-control studies. Lyon: IARC, 1980:122–59.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Beart RW, Kelly KK. Randomized prospective evaluation of the EEA stapler for colorectal anastomoses. Am J Surg 1981;141:143–7.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Reiling RB, Reiling WA, Bernie WA, Huffer AB, Perkins NC, Elliott DW. Prospective controlled study of gastrointestinal stapled anastomoses. Am J Surg 1980;139:147–52.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Gonzalez EM, Selas PR, Molina DM,et al. Results of surgery for cancer of the rectum with sphincter conservation: a randomized study on instrumentalversus manual anastomosis. Acta Oncol 1989;28:241–4.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Friend PJ, Scott R, Everett WG, Scott IH. Stapling or suturing for anastomoses of the left side of the large intestine. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1990;171:373–6.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Everett WG, Friend PJ, Forty J. Comparison of stapling and handsuture for left-sided large bowel anastomosis. Br J Surg 1986;73:345–8.

    Google Scholar 

  15. West of Scotland and Highland Anastomosis Study Group. Suturing or stapling in gastrointestinal surgery: a prospective randomized study. Br J Surg 1991;78:337–41.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Akyol AM, McGregor JR, Galloway DJ, Murray G, George WD. Recurrence of colorectal cancer after sutured and stapled large bowel anastomoses. Br J Surg 1991;78:1297–300.

    Google Scholar 

  17. French Associations for Surgical Research, Fingerhut A, Hay JM, Elhadad A, Lacaine F, Flamant Y. Supraperitoneal colorectal anastomosis: hand-sewnversus circular staples—a controlled clinical trial. Surgery 1995;118:479–85.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Didolkar MS, Reed WP, Elias EG, Schnaper LA, Brown SD, Chaudhary SM. A prospective randomized study of suturedversus staples bowel anastomoses in patients with cancer. Cancer 1986;57:456–60.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Brennan SS, Pickford IR, Evans M, Pollock AV. Staples or sutures for colonic anastomoses—a controlled clinical trial. Br J Surg 1982;69:722–4.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Sauven P, Playforth MJ, Evans M, Pollock AV. Early infective complications and late recurrent cancer in stapled colonic anastomoses. Dis Colon Rectum 1989;32:33–5.

    Google Scholar 

  21. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Cajozzo M, Compagno G, DiTora P, Spallitta SI, Bazan P. Advantages and disadvantages of mechanical vs. manual anastomosis in colorectal surgery. A prospective study. Acta Chir Scand 1990;156:167–9.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Sarker SK, Chaudhry R, Sinha VK. A comparison of stapled vs handsewn anastomosis in anterior resection for carcinoma rectum. Ind J Cancer 1994;31:133–7.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Kracht M, Hay JM, Fagniez PL, Fingerhut A. Ileocolonic anastomosis after right hemicolectomy for carcinoma: stapled or hand-sewn? A prospective, multicenter, randomized trial. Int J Colorectal Dis 1993;8:29–33.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Dziki AJ, Duncan MD, Harmon JW,et al. Advantages of handsewn over stapled bowel anastomosis. Dis Colon Rectum 1991;34:442–8.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Wolmark N, Gordon PH, Fisher B,et al. A comparison of stapled and handsewn anastomoses in patients undergoing resection for Dukes' B and C colorectal cancer: an analysis of disease-free survival and survival from the NSABP prospective clinical trials. Dis Colon Rectum 1986;29:344–50.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Read at the meeting of The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, June 22 to 26, 1997.

About this article

Cite this article

MacRae, H.M., McLeod, R.S. Handsewnvs. stapled anastomoses in colon and rectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 41, 180–189 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02238246

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02238246

Key words

Navigation