Cargando…

Single- versus two- layer intestinal anastomosis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND: To compare single- with two- layer intestinal anastomosis after intestinal resection: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials comparing single- with two-layer intestinal anastomosis were identified using a systematic search of Medline, Embas...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Shikata, Satoru, Yamagishi, Hisakazu, Taji, Yoshinori, Shimada, Toshihiko, Noguchi, Yoshinori
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2006
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1373646/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16438733
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2482-6-2
_version_ 1782126806972760064
author Shikata, Satoru
Yamagishi, Hisakazu
Taji, Yoshinori
Shimada, Toshihiko
Noguchi, Yoshinori
author_facet Shikata, Satoru
Yamagishi, Hisakazu
Taji, Yoshinori
Shimada, Toshihiko
Noguchi, Yoshinori
author_sort Shikata, Satoru
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: To compare single- with two- layer intestinal anastomosis after intestinal resection: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials comparing single- with two-layer intestinal anastomosis were identified using a systematic search of Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library Databases covering articles published from 1966 to 2004. Outcome of primary interest was postoperative leak. A risk ratio for trial outcomes and weighted pooled estimates for data were calculated. A fixed-effect model weighted using Mantel-Haenszel methods and a random-effect model using DerSimonian-Laird methods were employed. RESULTS: Six trials were analyzed, comprising 670 participants (single-layer group, n = 299; two-layer group, n = 371). Data on leaks were available from all included studies. Combined risk ratio using DerSimonian-Laird methods was 0.91 (95% CI = 0.49 to 1.69), and indicated no significant difference. Inter-study heterogeneity was significant (χ(2 )= 10.5, d.f. = 5, p = 0.06). CONCLUSION: No evidence was found that two-layer intestinal anastomosis leads to fewer post-operative leaks than single layer. Considering duration of the anastomosis procedure and medical expenses, single-layer intestinal anastomosis appears to represent the optimal choice for most surgical situations.
format Text
id pubmed-1373646
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2006
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-13736462006-02-18 Single- versus two- layer intestinal anastomosis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials Shikata, Satoru Yamagishi, Hisakazu Taji, Yoshinori Shimada, Toshihiko Noguchi, Yoshinori BMC Surg Research Article BACKGROUND: To compare single- with two- layer intestinal anastomosis after intestinal resection: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials comparing single- with two-layer intestinal anastomosis were identified using a systematic search of Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library Databases covering articles published from 1966 to 2004. Outcome of primary interest was postoperative leak. A risk ratio for trial outcomes and weighted pooled estimates for data were calculated. A fixed-effect model weighted using Mantel-Haenszel methods and a random-effect model using DerSimonian-Laird methods were employed. RESULTS: Six trials were analyzed, comprising 670 participants (single-layer group, n = 299; two-layer group, n = 371). Data on leaks were available from all included studies. Combined risk ratio using DerSimonian-Laird methods was 0.91 (95% CI = 0.49 to 1.69), and indicated no significant difference. Inter-study heterogeneity was significant (χ(2 )= 10.5, d.f. = 5, p = 0.06). CONCLUSION: No evidence was found that two-layer intestinal anastomosis leads to fewer post-operative leaks than single layer. Considering duration of the anastomosis procedure and medical expenses, single-layer intestinal anastomosis appears to represent the optimal choice for most surgical situations. BioMed Central 2006-01-27 /pmc/articles/PMC1373646/ /pubmed/16438733 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2482-6-2 Text en Copyright © 2006 Shikata et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
spellingShingle Research Article
Shikata, Satoru
Yamagishi, Hisakazu
Taji, Yoshinori
Shimada, Toshihiko
Noguchi, Yoshinori
Single- versus two- layer intestinal anastomosis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
title Single- versus two- layer intestinal anastomosis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
title_full Single- versus two- layer intestinal anastomosis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
title_fullStr Single- versus two- layer intestinal anastomosis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
title_full_unstemmed Single- versus two- layer intestinal anastomosis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
title_short Single- versus two- layer intestinal anastomosis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
title_sort single- versus two- layer intestinal anastomosis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1373646/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16438733
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2482-6-2
work_keys_str_mv AT shikatasatoru singleversustwolayerintestinalanastomosisametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT yamagishihisakazu singleversustwolayerintestinalanastomosisametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT tajiyoshinori singleversustwolayerintestinalanastomosisametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT shimadatoshihiko singleversustwolayerintestinalanastomosisametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT noguchiyoshinori singleversustwolayerintestinalanastomosisametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials