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: Prospective, randomized trial of the biofragmentable anastomosis ring. The BAR Investigational Group.
    Author: Bubrick MP, Corman ML, Cahill CJ, Hardy TG, Nance FC, Shatney CH.
    Journal: Am J Surg; 1991 Jan; 161(1):136-42; discussion 142-3. PubMed ID: 1987848.
    Abstract:
    A randomized trial was undertaken to compare the biofragmental anastomotic ring (BAR) with conventional intraperitoneal colorectal anastomotic techniques. Patients were randomized into one of two schemes: BAR versus sutured or BAR versus stapled anastomosis. There were 782 patients entered into the study and 283 patients (36%) had a sutured anastomosis, 104 patients (13%) had a stapled anastomosis, and 395 (51%) had the BAR. Comparison of the BAR with combined suture and stapled controls revealed no significant differences in wound complication, abscess rate, bleeding, anastomotic leaks, ileus, obstruction, or deaths. There were no differences in return of bowel function, return to normal diet, or hospital stay. Intraoperative difficulties occurred in 46 BAR patients (17%), and this was significantly higher (p less than 0.001) than for sutured (3%) but not for stapled anastomoses (11%). The occurrence of these problems did not adversely effect the outcome. The data suggest that the BAR is a safe, satisfactory alternative to sutured or stapled colorectal anastomoses.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]