Lustosa S A, Matos D, Atallah A N, Castro A A
Surgical Gastroenterology Department, Federal University of São Paulo, Rua Edson 278, AP61., São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil, 04618-031.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001(3):CD003144. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003144.
Randomized controlled trials comparing stapled with handsewn colorectal anastomosis have not shown either technique to be superior, perhaps because individual studies lacked statistical power. A systematic review, with pooled analysis of results, might provide a more definitive answer.
To compare the safety and effectiveness of stapled and handsewn colorectal anastomosis. The following primary hypothesis was tested: the stapled technique is more effective because it decreases the level of complications.
The RCT register of the Cochrane Review Group was searched for any trial or reference to a relevant trial (published, in-press, or in progress). All publications were sought through computerised searches of EMBASE, LILACS, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trials Database, and through letters to industrial companies and authors. There were no limits upon language, date, or other criteria.
All randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in which stapled and handsewn colorectal anastomosis were compared.
Adult patients submitted electively to colorectal anastomosis.
Endoluminal circular stapler and handsewn colorectal anastomosis.
a) Mortality b) Overall Anastomotic Dehiscence c) Clinical Anastomotic Dehiscence d) Radiological Anastomotic Dehiscence e) Stricture f) Anastomotic Haemorrhage g) Reoperation h) Wound Infection i) Anastomosis Duration j) Hospital Stay.
Data were independently extracted by the two reviewers (SASL, DM) and cross-checked. The methodological quality of each trial was assessed by the same two reviewers. Details of the randomization (generation and concealment), blinding, whether an intention-to-treat analysis was done, and the number of patients lost to follow-up were recorded. The results of each RCT were summarised on an intention-to-treat basis in 2 x 2 tables for each outcome. External validity was defined by characteristics of the participants, the interventions and the outcomes. The RCTs were stratified according to the level of colorectal anastomosis. The Risk Difference method (random effects model) and NNT for dichotomous outcomes measures and weighted mean difference for continuous outcomes measures, with the corresponding 95% confidence interval, were presented in this review. Statistical heterogeneity was evaluated by using funnel plot and chi-square testing.
Of the 1233 patients enrolled ( in 9 trials), 622 were treated with stapled, and 611 with manual, suture. The following main results were obtained: a) Mortality: result based on 901 patients; Risk Difference - 0.6% Confidence Interval -2.8% to +1.6%. b) Overall Dehiscence: result based on 1233 patients; Risk Difference 0.2%, 95% Confidence Interval -5.0% to +5.3%. c) Clinical Anastomotic Dehiscence : result based on 1233 patients; Risk Difference -1.4%, 95% Confidence Interval -5.2 to +2.3%. d) Radiological Anastomotic Dehiscence : result based on 825 patients; Risk Difference 1.2%, 95% Confidence Interval -4.8% to +7.3%. e) Stricture: result based on 1042 patients; Risk Difference 4.6%, 95% Confidence Interval 1.2% to 8.1%. Number needed to treat 17, 95% confidence interval 12 to 31. f) Anastomotic Hemorrhage: result based on 662 patients; Risk Difference 2.7%, 95% Confidence Interval - 0.1% to +5.5%. g) Reoperation: result based on 544 patients; Risk Difference 3.9%, 95% Confidence Interval 0.3% to 7.4%. h) Wound Infection: result based on 567 patients; Risk Difference 1.0%, 95% Confidence Interval -2.2% to +4.3%. i) Anastomosis duration: result based on one study (159 patients); Weighted Mean Difference -7.6 minutes, 95% Confidence Interval -12.9 to -2.2 minutes. j) Hospital Stay: result based on one study (159 patients), Weighted Mean Difference 2.0 days, 95% Confidence Interval -3.27 to +7.2 days.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: The evidence found was insufficient to demonstrate any superiority of stapled over handsewn techniques in colorectal anastomosis, regardless of the level of anastomosis.
比较吻合器与手工缝合结直肠吻合术的随机对照试验未显示出哪种技术更具优势,这可能是因为个别研究缺乏统计学效力。进行系统评价并对结果进行汇总分析或许能提供更确切的答案。
比较吻合器与手工缝合结直肠吻合术的安全性和有效性。检验了以下主要假设:吻合器技术更有效,因为它能降低并发症发生率。
检索Cochrane评价组的随机对照试验注册库,查找任何相关试验或对相关试验的引用(已发表、即将发表或正在进行)。通过对EMBASE、LILACS、MEDLINE、Cochrane对照临床试验数据库进行计算机检索,并致函各工业公司和作者,查找所有出版物。对语言、日期或其他标准没有限制。
所有比较吻合器与手工缝合结直肠吻合术的随机临床试验(RCT)。
择期接受结直肠吻合术的成年患者。
腔内圆形吻合器和手工缝合结直肠吻合术。
a)死亡率;b)总体吻合口裂开;c)临床吻合口裂开;d)影像学吻合口裂开;e)狭窄;f)吻合口出血;g)再次手术;h)伤口感染;i)吻合持续时间;j)住院时间。
由两位评价者(SASL、DM)独立提取数据并进行交叉核对。由这两位评价者对每个试验的方法学质量进行评估。记录随机化(产生和隐藏)、盲法、是否进行意向性分析以及失访患者数量的详细信息。每个RCT的结果在2×2表格中按意向性分析的基础上汇总,用于每个观察指标。外部效度由参与者、干预措施和观察指标的特征定义。根据结直肠吻合的水平对RCT进行分层。本评价中呈现了二分类观察指标的风险差法(随机效应模型)和需治疗人数以及连续观察指标的加权均数差,并给出相应的95%置信区间。采用漏斗图和卡方检验评估统计异质性。
在纳入的1233例患者(9项试验)中,622例接受吻合器治疗,611例接受手工缝合。获得了以下主要结果:a)死亡率:基于901例患者的结果;风险差-0.6%,置信区间-2.8%至+1.6%。b)总体裂开:基于1233例患者的结果;风险差0.2%,95%置信区间-5.0%至+5.3%。c)临床吻合口裂开:基于1233例患者的结果;风险差-1.4%,95%置信区间-5.2%至+2.3%。d)影像学吻合口裂开:基于825例患者的结果;风险差1.2%,95%置信区间-4.8%至+7.3%。e)狭窄:基于