Ye Feng, Lin Jian-jiang
Colorectal Department, The First Affliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310003, China.
Zhejiang Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. 2006 Nov;35(6):668-72. doi: 10.3785/j.issn.1008-9292.2006.06.017.
To compare the efficacy of the biofragmentable anastomotic ring (BAR) with conventional hand-sutured and stapling techniques,and to evaluate the safety and applicability of the BAR in intestinal anastomosis.
The totol of 498 patients performed intestinal anastomosis from January 2000 to November 2005 were allocated to BAR group (n=186), hand-sutured group (n=177) and linear cutter group (n=135). The operative time, postoperative convalescence and corresponding complication were recorded. Postoperative anastomotic inflammation and anastomotic stenosis were observed during half or one year follow-up of 436 patients.
The operative time was (102 +/- 16) min in the BAR group, (121 +/- 15) min in the hand-sutured group, and (105 +/- 18 ) min in the linear cutter group. The difference was significant statistically (P <0.05). The operative time in BAR group and linear cutter group was shorter than hand-sutured group. One case of anastomotic leakage was noted in the BAR group, one case in the hand-sutured group, and none in the linear cutter group. They were cured by conservative methods. One case of anastomotic obstruction happened in the BAR group, one case in the hand-sutured group. Two of them were cured by conservative methods. Two cases of anastomotic obstruction happened in the hand-sutured group. However, one of them required reoperation to remove the obstruction. In the BAR, hand-sutured and the linear cutter group, the postoperative first flatus time was (67.2+/- 4.6) h, (70.2 +/- 5.8) h and (69.2 +/- 6.2)h, respectively. No significant differences were observed among three groups(P > 0.05). The rate of postoperative anastomotic inflammation was 3.0 % (5/164) in the BAR group, 47.8 % (76/159) in hand-sutured group and 7.1 % (8/113) in the linear cutter group. The difference was significant statistically (P <0.05). The rate of postoperative anastomotic inflammation in the BAR group and in the linear cutter group was less than that in hand-sutured group.
BAR is one of rapid,safe and effective methods in intestinal anastomosis. It has less anastomotic inflammatory reaction than hand-sutured technique. It should be considered equal to manual and stapler methods.
比较生物可降解吻合环(BAR)与传统手工缝合及吻合器技术的疗效,并评估BAR在肠道吻合术中的安全性和适用性。
将2000年1月至2005年11月期间行肠道吻合术的498例患者分为BAR组(n = 186)、手工缝合组(n = 177)和直线切割器组(n = 135)。记录手术时间、术后恢复情况及相应并发症。对436例患者进行半年或一年的随访,观察术后吻合口炎症及吻合口狭窄情况。
BAR组手术时间为(102±16)分钟,手工缝合组为(121±15)分钟,直线切割器组为(105±18)分钟。差异有统计学意义(P <0.05)。BAR组和直线切割器组的手术时间均短于手工缝合组。BAR组有1例吻合口漏,手工缝合组有1例,直线切割器组无吻合口漏。均经保守治疗治愈。BAR组有1例吻合口梗阻,手工缝合组有1例。其中2例经保守治疗治愈。手工缝合组有2例吻合口梗阻。然而,其中1例需要再次手术解除梗阻。在BAR组、手工缝合组和直线切割器组中,术后首次排气时间分别为(67.2±4.6)小时、(70.2±5.8)小时和(69.2±6.2)小时。三组间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。BAR组术后吻合口炎症发生率为3.0%(5/164),手工缝合组为47.8%(76/159),直线切割器组为7.1%(8/113)。差异有统计学意义(P <0.05)。BAR组和直线切割器组术后吻合口炎症发生率均低于手工缝合组。
BAR是肠道吻合术中快速、安全、有效的方法之一。其吻合口炎症反应较手工缝合技术少。应将其视为与手工和吻合器方法相当的方法。