Influence of suture technique on anastomotic leakage rate—a retrospective analyses comparing interrupted—versus continuous—sutures
- 244 Downloads
While many hospitals consider a continuous sutured colonic anastomosis with monofilamental fiber the current state of the art, others have advocated for interrupted sutures as the gold standard. The aim of the study was to evaluate the influence of suture technique on leakage rate (primary endpoint), wound infections, postoperative stay, and mortality.
Retrospective analyses of 347 patients (273 elective, 74 urgent) over 6 years with a handsewn colonic anastomosis (190 interrupted, 157 continuous), excluding sigma and rectum anastomosis. Demographic and surgical baseline characteristics were used as competing predictors.
Overall leakage rate was 9% but strongly dependent on suture technique (interrupted: 16%; continuous: 2.5%; p = 0.001) yielding an odds ratio of 5.10 [95% CI: 2.55, 6.71] (relative risk of leakage). No other variable showed a significant influence on leakage rate. Postoperative stay was prolonged in the interrupted suture group (23 ± 15 vs. 16 ± 11 days; p = 0.000, attributable effect 7.5 days [4.7, 10.3]).
Our results indicate a highly significant reduction of anastomotic leakage rate and postoperative stay that generalize to the underlying population by continuous sutures in handsewn colonic anastomosis. In the absence of randomized prospective studies, the current results provide the yet strongest evidence for the superiority of continuous sutures.
KeywordsAnastomotic leakage Interrupted suture technique Continuous suture technique Anastomotic technique Colon anastomosis
The contributions of each author in preparing the manuscript are as follows: study conception and design: R. E., S.K., M.B., acquisition of data: R.E., S.K. M.B., analysis and interpretation of data: R.E., S.E. M.B. C.K. A.K. D.H. Drafting of manuscript: R.E., S.E., M.B. Critical revision of manuscript: M.B., S.E., U.N., C.K., A.K., D.H.
Compliance with ethical standards
The study was approved by the local ethics committee (EK 093/16). All procedures were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments.
For this type of study, formal consent is not required.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 3.Zurbuchen U, Kroesen AJ, Knebel P, Betzler MH, Becker H, Bruch HP, Senninger N, Post S, Buhr HJ, Ritz JP (2013) Complications after end-to-end vs. side-to-side anastomosis in ileocecal Crohn's disease--early postoperative results from a randomized controlled multi-center trial (ISRCTN-45665492). Langenbeck's Arch Surg/ Dtsch Ges Chir 398(3):467–474. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-012-0904-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.Reggio S, Sciuto A, Cuccurullo D, Pirozzi F, Esposito F, Cusano D, Corcione F (2015) Single-layer versus double-layer closure of the enterotomy in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis: a single-center study. Tech Coloproctol 19(12):745–750. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-015-1378-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 5.Herrle F, Diener MK, Freudenberg S, Willeke F, Kienle P, Boenninghoff R, Weiss C, Partecke LI, Schuld J, Post S (2016) Single-layer continuous versus double-layer continuous suture in colonic anastomoses-a randomized multicentre trial (ANATECH trial). J Gastrointest Surg: Off J Soc Surg Alimentary Tract 20(2):421–430. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-015-3003-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Delaitre B, Champault G, Chapuis Y, Patel JC, Louvel A, Leger L (1977) Continuous and interrupted intestinal sutures. Experimental and clinical study (author's transl). J Chir 113(1):43–57Google Scholar
- 11.Frye J, Bokey EL, Chapuis PH, Sinclair G, Dent OF (2009) Anastomotic leakage after resection of colorectal cancer generates prodigious use of hospital resources. Color Dis: Off J Assoc Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland 11(9):917–920. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-1318.2008.01728.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Binnebosel M, Schuler T, Klink CD, Busch D, Schob DS, von Trotha KT, Neumann UP, Junge K (2014) Influence of CD68+ macrophages and neutrophils on anastomotic healing following laparoscopic sigmoid resection due to diverticulitis. Int J Color Dis 29(6):681–688. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-014-1855-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Deen KI, Smart PJ (1995) Prospective evaluation of sutured, continuous, and interrupted single layer colonic anastomoses. Eur J Surg = Acta Chir 161(10):751–753Google Scholar
- 21.Nors J, Sommer T, Wara P (2018) Leakage rate after laparoscopic ileocolic Intracorporeal anastomosis. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech Part A. https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2018.0219
- 22.Johnston WF, Stafford C, Francone TD, Read TE, Marcello PW, Roberts PL, Ricciardi R (2017) What is the risk of anastomotic leak after repeat intestinal resection in patients with Crohn's disease? Dis Colon Rectum 60(12):1299–1306. https://doi.org/10.1097/dcr.0000000000000946 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 25.Pramateftakis MG, Vrakas G, Hatzigianni P, Tsachalis T, Matzoros I, Christoforidis E, Raptis D, Roidos G, Lazaridis C (2010) The handsewn anastomosis after colon resection due to colonic cancer. Tech Coloproctol 14(Suppl 1):S57–S59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-010-0612-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 28.Klarenbeek BR, Veenhof AA, Bergamaschi R, van der Peet DL, van den Broek WT, de Lange ES, Bemelman WA, Heres P, Lacy AM, Engel AF, Cuesta MA (2009) Laparoscopic sigmoid resection for diverticulitis decreases major morbidity rates: a randomized control trial: short-term results of the sigma trial. Ann Surg 249(1):39–44. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e31818e416a CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 31.Alves A, Panis Y, Trancart D, Regimbeau JM, Pocard M, Valleur P (2002) Factors associated with clinically significant anastomotic leakage after large bowel resection: multivariate analysis of 707 patients. World J Surg 26(4):499–502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-001-0256-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar