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: [Clinical application of biofragmentable anastomosis ring for intestinal anastomosis].
    Author: Ye F, Lin JJ.
    Journal: Zhejiang Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban; 2006 Nov; 35(6):668-72. PubMed ID: 17177342.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of the biofragmentable anastomotic ring (BAR) with conventional hand-sutured and stapling techniques,and to evaluate the safety and applicability of the BAR in intestinal anastomosis. METHODS: The totol of 498 patients performed intestinal anastomosis from January 2000 to November 2005 were allocated to BAR group (n=186), hand-sutured group (n=177) and linear cutter group (n=135). The operative time, postoperative convalescence and corresponding complication were recorded. Postoperative anastomotic inflammation and anastomotic stenosis were observed during half or one year follow-up of 436 patients. RESULT: The operative time was (102 +/- 16) min in the BAR group, (121 +/- 15) min in the hand-sutured group, and (105 +/- 18 ) min in the linear cutter group. The difference was significant statistically (P <0.05). The operative time in BAR group and linear cutter group was shorter than hand-sutured group. One case of anastomotic leakage was noted in the BAR group, one case in the hand-sutured group, and none in the linear cutter group. They were cured by conservative methods. One case of anastomotic obstruction happened in the BAR group, one case in the hand-sutured group. Two of them were cured by conservative methods. Two cases of anastomotic obstruction happened in the hand-sutured group. However, one of them required reoperation to remove the obstruction. In the BAR, hand-sutured and the linear cutter group, the postoperative first flatus time was (67.2+/- 4.6) h, (70.2 +/- 5.8) h and (69.2 +/- 6.2)h, respectively. No significant differences were observed among three groups(P > 0.05). The rate of postoperative anastomotic inflammation was 3.0 % (5/164) in the BAR group, 47.8 % (76/159) in hand-sutured group and 7.1 % (8/113) in the linear cutter group. The difference was significant statistically (P <0.05). The rate of postoperative anastomotic inflammation in the BAR group and in the linear cutter group was less than that in hand-sutured group. CONCLUSION: BAR is one of rapid,safe and effective methods in intestinal anastomosis. It has less anastomotic inflammatory reaction than hand-sutured technique. It should be considered equal to manual and stapler methods.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]