These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Handsewn versus stapled anastomosis in penetrating colon injuries requiring resection: a multicenter study.
    Author: Demetriades D, Murray JA, Chan LS, Ordoñez C, Bowley D, Nagy KK, Cornwell EE, Velmahos GC, Muñoz N, Hatzitheofilou C, Schwab CW, Rodriguez A, Cornejo C, Davis KA, Namias N, Wisner DH, Ivatury RR, Moore EE, Acosta JA, Maull KI, Thomason MH, Spain DA.
    Journal: J Trauma; 2002 Jan; 52(1):117-21. PubMed ID: 11791061.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Although the use of stapling devices in elective colon surgery has been shown to be as safe as handsewn techniques, there have been concerns about their safety in emergency trauma surgery. The purpose of this study was to compare stapled with handsewn colonic anastomosis following penetrating trauma. METHODS: This was a prospective multicenter study and included patients who underwent colon resection and anastomosis following penetrating trauma. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify independent risk factors for abdominal complications and compare outcomes between stapled and handsewn repairs. RESULTS: Two hundred seven patients underwent colon resection and primary anastomosis. In 128 patients (61.8%) the anastomosis was performed with handsewing and in the remaining 79 (38.2%) with stapling devices. There were no colon-related deaths and the overall incidence of colon-related abdominal complications was 22.7% (26.6% in the stapled group and 20.3% in the handsewn group, p = 0.30). The incidence of anastomotic leak was 6.3% in the stapled group and 7.8% in the handsewn group (p = 0.69). Multivariate analysis adjusting for blood transfusions, fecal contamination, and type of antibiotic prophylaxis showed that the adjusted odds ratio (OR) of complications in the stapled group was 0.83 (95% CI, 0.38-1.74, p = 0.63). In a second multivariate analysis adjusting for blood transfusions, hypotension, fecal contamination, Penetrating Abdominal Trauma Index, and preoperative delays the adjusted OR in the stapled group was 0.99 (95% CI, 0.46-2.11, p = 0.99). CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that the method of anastomosis following colon resection for penetrating trauma does not affect the incidence of abdominal complications and the choice should be surgeon's preference.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]