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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |