Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Anastomotic Construction

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The ASCRS Textbook of Colon and Rectal Surgery

Abstract

In spite of remarkable technological advances, anastomotic leak continues to plague our best efforts even 20 years into the twenty-first century. It continues to be a feared complication. The morbidity of leak is far reaching, often involving reoperation, lengthy hospital stay, loss of function, poorer oncologic outcomes, or even operative mortality. Unfortunately, anastomosis outcomes vary, in part based on surgeon performance. This is particularly sobering as perhaps there are few operative outcomes that affect a surgeon’s personal measure of competence and self-esteem. As individual surgeons, we are acutely aware of the dire implications for our patients who suffer an anastomotic leak.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Dietz UA, Debus E-S. Intestinal anastomoses prior to 1882; a legacy of ingenuity, persistence, and research form a foundation for modern gastrointestinal surgery. World J Surg. 2005;29(3):396–401.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. McArdle C, McMillan D, Hole D. Impact of anastomotic leakage on long-term survival of patients undergoing curative resection for colorectal cancer. British Journal of Surgery: Incorporating European Journal of Surgery and Swiss Surgery. 2005;92(9):1150–4.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. García-Granero E, et al. Individual surgeon is an independent risk factor for leak after double-stapled colorectal anastomosis: an institutional analysis of 800 patients. Surgery. 2017;162(5):1006–16.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Marinello F, et al. Anastomotic leakage after colon cancer resection: does the individual surgeon matter? Color Dis. 2016;18(6):562–9.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Thornton FJ, Barbul A. Healing in the gastrointestinal tract. Surg Clin N Am. 1997;77(3):549–73.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Thompson SK, Chang EY, Jobe BA. Clinical review: healing in gastrointestinal anastomoses, part I. Microsurgery. 2006;26(3):131–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Senn N. Enterorrhaphy; its history, technique and present status. JAMA. 1893;21:215–35.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hardy KJ. A view of the development of intestinal suture. Part II. Principles and techniques. Aust N Z J Surg. 1990;60(5):377–84.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Giles D, Talbot E. Suturing, stapling, and tissue adhesion. In: Shackelford's surgery of the alimentary tract, vol. 2. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2019. p. 1005–13.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gershuni VM, Friedman ES. The microbiome-host interaction as a potential driver of anastomotic leak. Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2019;21(1):4.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Shogan BD, et al. Collagen degradation and MMP9 activation by Enterococcus faecalis contribute to intestinal anastomotic leak. Sci Transl Med. 2015;7(286):286ra68.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. van der Stappen JW, et al. Collagenolytic activity in experimental intestinal anastomoses. Differences between small and large bowel and evidence for the presence of collagenase. Int J Color Dis. 1992;7(2):95–101.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Keighley MR. Atlas of colorectal surgery. London: Churchill Livingstone; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Shikata J-I, Shida T. Effects of tension on local blood flow in experimental intestinal anastomoses. J Surg Res. 1986;40(2):105–11.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Smith L, Friend WG, Medwell SJ. The superior mesenteric artery. The critical factor in the pouch pull-through procedure. Dis Colon Rectum. 1984;27(11):741–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Thirlby RC. Optimizing results and techniques of mesenteric lengthening in ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Am J Surg. 1995;169(5):499–502.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Chu DI, et al. Strategy for the difficult-to-reach ileal pouch-anal anastomosis: technical steps of an in vivo application of a mesenteric-lengthening technique. Tech Coloproctol. 2015;19(11):705–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. İsmail E, et al. Comparison of mesenteric lengthening techniques in IPAA: an anatomic and angiographic study on fresh cadavers. Dis Colon Rectum. 2018;61(8):979–87.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Burnstein MJ, et al. Technique of mesenteric lengthening in ileal reservoir-anal anastomosis. Dis Colon Rectum. 1987;30(11):863–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Girard E, et al. Level of inferior mesenteric artery ligation in low rectal cancer surgery: high tie preferred over low tie. Tech Coloproctol. 2019;23(3):267–71.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Bonnet S, et al. High tie versus low tie vascular ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery in colorectal cancer surgery: impact on the gain in colon length and implications on the feasibility of anastomoses. Dis Colon Rectum. 2012;55(5):515–21.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Brennan DJ, et al. Routine mobilization of the splenic flexure is not necessary during anterior resection for rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2007;50(3):302–7; discussion 307

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ludwig KA, Kosinski L. Is splenic flexure mobilization necessary in laparoscopic anterior resection? Another view. Dis Colon Rectum. 2012;55(11):1198–200.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kream J, et al. Achieving low anastomotic leak rates utilizing clinical perfusion assessment. Surgery. 2016;160(4):960–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Manceau G, Karoui M. Remedial surgery following failed colorectal or coloanal anastomosis. In: Modern management of cancer of the rectum. London: Springer; 2015. p. 435–45.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Toupet A. Intermediate colectomy with transmesenteric angulo-sigmoid anastomosis. La Presse medicale. 1961;69:2693.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Hays LV, Davis DR. A technic for restoring intestinal continuity after left hemicolectomy for cancer of the distal colon and rectum. Am J Surg. 1976;131(3):390–1.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Rombeau JL, Collins JP, Turnbull RB. Left-sided colectomy with retroileal colorectal anastomosis. Arch Surg. 1978;113(8):1004–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Le TH, Gathright JB. Reconstitution of intestinal continuity after extended left colectomy. Dis Colon Rectum. 1993;36(2):197–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Blank JJ, et al. Retroileal anastomosis in hand-assisted laparoscopic left colectomy: experience at a single institution. Surg Endosc. 2019;34:1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Chen YYC, et al. Colorectal anastomosis after laparoscopic extended left colectomy: techniques and outcome. Color Dis. 2020;22:1189.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Dunlavy P, Allan L, Raman S. Totally laparoscopic retroileal transverse colon to rectal anastomosis following extended left colectomy. Dis Colon Rectum. 2017;60(11):1224.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Jouvin I, Pocard M, Najah H. Deloyers procedure. J Visc Surg. 2018;155(6):493–501.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Kontovounisios C, et al. Modified right colon inversion technique as a salvage procedure for colorectal or coloanal anastomosis. Color Dis. 2014;16(12):971–5.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Manceau G, et al. Right colon to rectal anastomosis (Deloyers procedure) as a salvage technique for low colorectal or coloanal anastomosis: postoperative and long-term outcomes. Dis Colon Rectum. 2012;55(3):363–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Sciuto A, et al. Laparoscopic Deloyers procedure for tension-free anastomosis after extended left colectomy: technique and results. Tech Coloproctol. 2016;20(12):865–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Hasegawa H, et al. Impact of intraoperative indocyanine green fluorescence angiography on anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic sphincter-sparing surgery for malignant rectal tumors. Int J Color Dis. 2020;35(3):471–80.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Shen R, Zhang Y, Wang T. Indocyanine green fluorescence angiography and the incidence of anastomotic leak after colorectal resection for colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Dis Colon Rectum. 2018;61(10):1228–34.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Kawada K, et al. Evaluation of intestinal perfusion by ICG fluorescence imaging in laparoscopic colorectal surgery with DST anastomosis. Surg Endosc. 2017;31(3):1061–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Chang YK, et al. The impact of indocyanine-green fluorescence angiogram on colorectal resection. Surgeon. 2019;17(5):270–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Jafari MD, et al. Perfusion assessment in laparoscopic left-sided/anterior resection (PILLAR II): a multi-institutional study. J Am Coll Surg. 2015;220(1):82–92.e1.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Blanco-Colino R, Espin-Basany E. Intraoperative use of ICG fluorescence imaging to reduce the risk of anastomotic leakage in colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Tech Coloproctol. 2018;22(1):15–23.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Kono T, et al. A new antimesenteric functional end-to-end handsewn anastomosis: surgical prevention of anastomotic recurrence in Crohn's disease. Dis Colon Rectum. 2011;54(5):586–92.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Kono T, et al. Kono-S anastomosis for surgical prophylaxis of anastomotic recurrence in Crohn’s disease: an international multicenter study. J Gastrointest Surg. 2016;20(4):783–90.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Shimada N, et al. Surgical recurrence at anastomotic site after bowel resection in Crohn's disease: comparison of Kono-S and end-to-end anastomosis. J Gastrointest Surg. 2019;23(2):312–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Binda GA, et al. Surgical treatment of a colon neoplasm of the splenic flexure: a multicentric study of short-term outcomes. Color Dis. 2020;22(2):146–53.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Manceau G, et al. Elective surgery for tumours of the splenic flexure: a French inter-group (AFC, SFCD, FRENCH, GRECCAR) survey. Tech Coloproctol. 2020;24(2):191–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Hida J-I, et al. Comparison of long-term functional results of colonic J-pouch and straight anastomosis after low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a five-year follow-up. Dis Colon Rectum. 2004;47(10):1578–85.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Fazio VW, et al. A randomized multicenter trial to compare long-term functional outcome, quality of life, and complications of surgical procedures for low rectal cancers. Ann Surg. 2007;246(3):481–8; discussion 488–90

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Hallböök O, et al. Randomized comparison of straight and colonic J pouch anastomosis after low anterior resection. Ann Surg. 1996;224(1):58–65.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Heriot AG, et al. Meta-analysis of colonic reservoirs versus straight coloanal anastomosis after anterior resection. Br J Surg. 2006;93(1):19–32.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Dehni N, et al. Long-term functional outcome after low anterior resection: comparison of low colorectal anastomosis and colonic J-pouch-anal anastomosis. Dis Colon Rectum. 1998;41(7):817–22; discussion 822–3

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Ho YH, Seow-Choen F, Tan M. Colonic J-pouch function at six months versus straight coloanal anastomosis at two years: randomized controlled trial. World J Surg. 2001;25(7):876–81.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Joo JS, et al. Long-term functional evaluation of straight coloanal anastomosis and colonic J-pouch: is the functional superiority of colonic J-pouch sustained? Dis Colon Rectum. 1998;41(6):740–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Harris G, Lavery I, Fazio V. Function of a colonic J pouch continues to improve with time. Br J Surg. 2001;88(12):1623–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Dinnewitzer A, et al. Cumulative incidence of permanent stoma after sphincter preserving low anterior resection of mid and low rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2013;56(10):1134–42.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Lindgren R, et al. What is the risk for a permanent stoma after low anterior resection of the rectum for cancer? A six-year follow-up of a multicenter trial. Dis Colon Rectum. 2011;54(1):41–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Brown S, et al. Morbidity following coloanal anastomosis: a comparison of colonic J-pouch vs straight anastomosis. Dis Colon Rectum. 2018;61(2):156–61.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Wexner SD, Alabaz O. Anastomotic integrity and function: role of the colonic J-pouch. Semin Surg Oncol. 1998;15(2):91–100.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Hüttner FJ, et al. Meta-analysis of reconstruction techniques after low anterior resection for rectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2015;102(7):735–45.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Machado M, et al. Similar outcome after colonic pouch and side-to-end anastomosis in low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a prospective randomized trial. Ann Surg. 2003;238(2):214.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Parc Y, et al. Better function with a colonic J-pouch or a side-to-end anastomosis?: a randomized controlled trial to compare the complications, functional outcome, and quality of life in patients with low rectal cancer after a J-pouch or a side-to-end anastomosis. Ann Surg. 2019;269(5):815–26.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Ballantyne GH. The experimental basis of intestinal suturing. Effect of surgical technique, inflammation, and infection on enteric wound healing. Dis Colon Rectum. 1984;27(1):61–71.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Koruda MJ, Rolandelli RH. Experimental studies on the healing of colonic anastomoses. J Surg Res. 1990;48(5):504–15.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Hardy KJ. A view of the development of intestinal suture. Part I. From legend to practice. Aust N Z J Surg. 1990;60(4):299–304.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Slieker JC, et al. Systematic review of the technique of colorectal anastomosis. JAMA Surg. 2013;148(2):190–201.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Burch JM, et al. Single-layer continuous versus two-layer interrupted intestinal anastomosis: a prospective randomized trial. Ann Surg. 2000;231(6):832–7.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Sajid MS, Siddiqui MR, Baig MK. Single layer versus double layer suture anastomosis of the gastrointestinal tract. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;(1):Cd005477.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Kar S, et al. Single layered versus double layered intestinal anastomosis: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Diagn Res. 2017;11(6):Pc01–pc04.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Herrle F, et al. Single-layer continuous versus double-layer continuous suture in colonic anastomoses-a randomized multicentre trial (ANATECH trial). J Gastrointest Surg. 2016;20(2):421–30.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Gaidry AD, et al. The history of surgical staplers: a combination of Hungarian, Russian, and American innovation. Am Surg. 2019;85(6):563–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Baker RS, et al. The science of stapling and leaks. Obes Surg. 2004;14(10):1290–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Trimpi HD, et al. Advances in intestinal anastomosis: experimental study and an analysis of 984 patients. Dis Colon Rectum. 1977;20(2):107–17.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Nakayama S, et al. The importance of precompression time for secure stapling with a linear stapler. Surg Endosc. 2011;25(7):2382–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Matsuzawa F, et al. Serosal laceration during firing of powered linear stapler is a predictor of staple malformation. Surg Innov. 2017;24(6):590–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Nakayama S, et al. Obtaining secure stapling of a double stapling anastomosis. J Surg Res. 2015;193(2):652–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Kamal T, et al. Should anastomotic assessment with flexible sigmoidoscopy be routine following laparoscopic restorative left colorectal resection? Color Dis. 2015;17(2):160–4.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Kwon S, et al. Surgical care and outcomes assessment program (SCOAP) collaborative. Routine leak testing in colorectal surgery in the surgical care and outcomes assessment program. Arch Surg. 2012;147(4):345–51.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. Wu Z, et al. Is the intraoperative air leak test effective in the prevention of colorectal anastomotic leakage? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Color Dis. 2016;31(8):1409–17.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Naumann DN, et al. Stapled versus handsewn intestinal anastomosis in emergency laparotomy: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Surgery. 2015;157(4):609–18.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Group, E.S.o.C.C, et al. Relationship between method of anastomosis and anastomotic failure after right hemicolectomy and ileo-caecal resection: an international snapshot audit. Colorectal Dis. 2017;19(8):e296–311.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Nordholm-Carstensen A, Schnack Rasmussen M, Krarup PM. Increased leak rates following stapled versus handsewn ileocolic anastomosis in patients with right-sided colon cancer: a Nationwide Cohort Study. Dis Colon Rectum. 2019;62(5):542–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Chekan E, Whelan RL. Surgical stapling device-tissue interactions: what surgeons need to know to improve patient outcomes. Med Devices (Auckl). 2014;7:305–18.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  84. Offodile AC 2nd, et al. High incidence of technical errors involving the EEA circular stapler: a single institution experience. J Am Coll Surg. 2010;210(3):331–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Stewart D, et al. Validation of the NITI Endoluminal Compression Anastomosis Ring (EndoCAR) device and comparison to the traditional circular stapled colorectal anastomosis in a porcine model. Surg Innov. 2007;14(4):252–60.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Berho M, et al. Histopathologic advantages of compression ring anastomosis healing as compared with stapled anastomosis in a porcine model: a blinded comparative study. Dis Colon Rectum. 2014;57(4):506–13.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Slesser A, et al. Compression versus hand-sewn and stapled anastomosis in colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Tech Coloproctol. 2016;20(10):667–76.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Neutzling CB, et al. Stapled versus handsewn methods for colorectal anastomosis surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;(2):Cd003144.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Choy PYG, et al. Stapled versus handsewn methods for ileocolic anastomoses. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;(9)

    Google Scholar 

  90. Löffler T, et al. HAnd suture versus STApling for closure of loop ileostomy (HASTA trial): results of a multicenter randomized trial (DRKS00000040). Ann Surg. 2012;256(5):828–35; discussion 835–6

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Jurowich C, et al. Effects of anastomotic technique on early postoperative outcome in open right-sided hemicolectomy. BJS Open. 2019;3(2):203–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Predictors for anastomotic leak, postoperative complications, and mortality after right colectomy for cancer: results from an international snapshot audit. Dis Colon Rectum. 2020;63(5):606–18.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Merchea A, Dozois EJ, Wang JK, Larson DW. Anatomic mechanisms for splenic injury during colorectal surgery. Clin Anat. 2012;25:212–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Steele SR, Hull TL, Read TE, Saclarides TJ, Senagore AJ, Whitlow CB, editors. The ASCRS textbook of colon and rectal surgery. 3rd ed. Cham: Springer Nature; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Hunt SR, Silviera ML. Anastomostic construction. In: Steele SR, Hull TL, Read TE, Saclarides TJ, Senagore AJ, Whitlow CB, editors. The ASCRS textbook of colon and rectal surgery. 3rd ed. Cham: Springer Nature; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Akiyoshi T, Ueno M, Fukunaga Y, et al. Incidence of and risk factors for anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic anterior resection with intracorporeal rectal transection and double-stapling technique anastomosis for rectal cancer. Am J Surg. 2011;202(3):259–64.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ochsner Clinic Foundation, Department of Colon and Rectal Surgery, New Orleans, LA, USA

    H. David Vargas

  2. Ochsner Clinic Foundation, Ochsner Clinical School, University of Queensland, Department of Colon and Rectal Surgery, New Orleans, LA, USA

    David A. Margolin

Authors
  1. H. David Vargas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David A. Margolin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to H. David Vargas .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Colorectal Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA

    Scott R. Steele

  2. Department of Colorectal Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA

    Tracy L. Hull

  3. University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA

    Neil Hyman

  4. Department of Surgery, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA

    Justin A. Maykel

  5. Division of Gastrointestinal Surgery, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

    Thomas E. Read

  6. Department of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Ochsner Clinic, New Orleans, LA, USA

    Charles B. Whitlow

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Vargas, H.D., Margolin, D.A. (2022). Anastomotic Construction. In: Steele, S.R., Hull, T.L., Hyman, N., Maykel, J.A., Read, T.E., Whitlow, C.B. (eds) The ASCRS Textbook of Colon and Rectal Surgery. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66049-9_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66049-9_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-66048-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-66049-9

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation