Demetriades Demetrios, Murray James A, Chan Linda S, Ordoñez C, Bowley D, Nagy Kimberly K, Cornwell Edward E, Velmahos George C, Muñoz N, Hatzitheofilou C, Schwab C William, Rodriguez Aurelio, Cornejo C, Davis Kimberly A, Namias Nicholas, Wisner David H, Ivatury Rao R, Moore Ernest E, Acosta Jose A, Maull Kimball I, Thomason Michael H, Spain David A
Los Angeles County and University of Southern California Trauma Center, Los Angeles, California, USA.
J Trauma. 2002 Jan;52(1):117-21. doi: 10.1097/00005373-200201000-00020.
Although the use of stapling devices in elective colon surgery has been shown to be as safe as handsewn techniques, there have been concerns about their safety in emergency trauma surgery. The purpose of this study was to compare stapled with handsewn colonic anastomosis following penetrating trauma.
This was a prospective multicenter study and included patients who underwent colon resection and anastomosis following penetrating trauma. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify independent risk factors for abdominal complications and compare outcomes between stapled and handsewn repairs.
Two hundred seven patients underwent colon resection and primary anastomosis. In 128 patients (61.8%) the anastomosis was performed with handsewing and in the remaining 79 (38.2%) with stapling devices. There were no colon-related deaths and the overall incidence of colon-related abdominal complications was 22.7% (26.6% in the stapled group and 20.3% in the handsewn group, p = 0.30). The incidence of anastomotic leak was 6.3% in the stapled group and 7.8% in the handsewn group (p = 0.69). Multivariate analysis adjusting for blood transfusions, fecal contamination, and type of antibiotic prophylaxis showed that the adjusted odds ratio (OR) of complications in the stapled group was 0.83 (95% CI, 0.38-1.74, p = 0.63). In a second multivariate analysis adjusting for blood transfusions, hypotension, fecal contamination, Penetrating Abdominal Trauma Index, and preoperative delays the adjusted OR in the stapled group was 0.99 (95% CI, 0.46-2.11, p = 0.99).
The results of this study suggest that the method of anastomosis following colon resection for penetrating trauma does not affect the incidence of abdominal complications and the choice should be surgeon's preference.
尽管在择期结肠手术中使用吻合器已被证明与手工缝合技术一样安全,但人们一直担心其在急诊创伤手术中的安全性。本研究的目的是比较穿透性创伤后吻合器吻合与手工缝合结肠吻合的效果。
这是一项前瞻性多中心研究,纳入了穿透性创伤后接受结肠切除和吻合术的患者。采用多因素逻辑回归分析确定腹部并发症的独立危险因素,并比较吻合器吻合与手工缝合修复的结果。
207例患者接受了结肠切除和一期吻合术。128例患者(61.8%)采用手工缝合进行吻合,其余79例(38.2%)采用吻合器。无结肠相关死亡病例,结肠相关腹部并发症的总发生率为22.7%(吻合器组为26.6%,手工缝合组为20.3%,p = 0.30)。吻合口漏的发生率在吻合器组为6.3%,在手工缝合组为7.8%(p = 0.69)。在对输血、粪便污染和抗生素预防类型进行校正的多因素分析中,吻合器组并发症的校正比值比(OR)为0.83(95%CI,0.38 - 1.74,p = 0.63)。在对输血、低血压、粪便污染、腹部穿透伤指数和术前延迟进行校正的第二项多因素分析中,吻合器组的校正OR为0.99(95%CI,0.46 - 2.11,p = 0.99)。
本研究结果表明,穿透性创伤后结肠切除的吻合方法不影响腹部并发症的发生率,选择应取决于外科医生的偏好。