Single interrupted vs. continuous all layer closure in bowel anastomosis in emergency surgeries: a comparative study

Authors

  • Shifa A. Kalokhe Department of General Surgery, MGM Medical College and Hospital, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
  • Rohit Sonawane Department of General Surgery, MGM Medical College and Hospital, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
  • Shrutik Devdikar Department of General Surgery, MGM Medical College and Hospital, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
  • G. S. Narshetty Department of General Surgery, MGM Medical College and Hospital, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20233678

Keywords:

Intestinal anastomosis, Single layer anastomosis, Double layer anastomosis

Abstract

Background: Intestinal anastomosis dates to ancient eras and hand sewn intestinal anastomosis is the most used technique worldwide. Various complications following bowel anastomoses are anastomotic leak resulting into peritonitis, abscess, fistula, necrosis, stricture. Various factors contribute to these complications including suturing technique. Leakage from the bowel anastomoses complication and accounts for about 1.3 to 7.7%, that is often associated with increased morbidity and mortality and prolonged stay. This comparative study endeavours to compare outcome of extra-mucosal interrupted single layer versus continuous all layers intestinal anastomosis in small and large bowel in terms of duration required to perform intestinal anastomosis, post-operative complications like anastomotic leak, duration of hospital stay in each group Aim of the present study was to compare time required to perform anastomosis and to compare the rate of postoperative complications and hospital duration.

Methods: Based on detailed history, clinical examination and radiological investigations; patients were allotted in either group A or B. Group A: Bowel Anastomosis done by single layer (20 Patients) and Group B: Bowel anastomosis done by double layer (20 Patients). Time required to perform anastomosis and post op complications was assessed and compared.

Results:  In this prospective study of 40 patients, it was found that Group A required an average of 17 minutes and Group B required 24 minutes for anastomosis. The rate of postoperative complications were found to be similar in both groups. The mean hospital stay was also found to be similar.

Conclusions: Thus, from this prospective comparative study, we conclude that both extra mucosal interrupted single layer and continuous all layer anastomosis have operative technical challenges and similar postoperative outcomes.

References

Shikata S, Yamagishi H, Taji Y, Shimada T, Noguchi Y. Single- versus two- layer intestinal anastomosis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BMC Surg. 2006;6:2.

Joyce M, Sweeney K, Johnston S, Geraghty JG. Techniques of bowel re-section and anastomosis. CME J Gynecol Oncol. 2002;7:23-9.

Kar S, Mohapatra V, Singh S, Rath PK, Behera TR. Single Layered Versus Double Layered Intestinal Anastomosis: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Clin Diagn Res. 2017;11(6):PC01-PC04.

Garude K, Tandel C, Rao S, Shah NJ. Single layered intestinal anastomosis: a safeand economic technique. Indian J Surg. 2013;75(4):290-3.

Foster ME, Kort WJ, Weijma IM, van den Ingh HF, Jeekel H. Healing of ischemic colonic anastomosis: fibrin sealant does not improve wound healing. Dis Colon Rectum. 1992;35(9):884-91.

Lembert A. Memoire sur l’enteroraphie avec la description d’un procede nouveau pour pratiquer cette operation chirurgicale. Rep Gen Anat Physiol Path. 1826;2:100.

Leonardo RA. History of Surgery. New York: Froden; 1943.

Czerny V. Zur Darmresektion. Berl Klin Wschr. 1880;17:637.

Gambee LP, Garnjobst W, Hardwick CE. Ten years’ experience with a single-layer anastomosis in colon surgery. Am J Surg. 1956;5:222-7.

Hautefeuille P. Reflexions sur les sutures digetives: a propos de 570 sutures accomplies depuis 5 ans au surjet monoplan de monobrin. Chirurgie. 1976;102: 153-65

Allen TW, Hohlagschwandtner M, Chalubinski K, Nather A, Husslein P, Joura EA. Continuous vs interrupted sutures for single-layer closure of uterine incision at cesarean section. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2003;268(1):26-8.

Max E, Sweeney B, Bailey HR. Results of 1,000 single-layer continuous polypropylene intestinal anastomoses. Am J Surg. 1991;162:461-7.

Law WL, Bailey HR, Max E. Single-layer continuous colon and rectal anastomosis using monofilament absorbable suture (Maxon): study of 500 cases. Dis Colon Rectum. 1999;42:736-40.

Bailey HR, LaVoo JW, Max E. Single-layer continuous colorectal anastomosis. Aust NZ J Surg. 1981;51:473-6.

Bronwell AW, Rutledge R, Dalton ML. Single-layer open gastrointestinal anastomosis. Ann Surg. 1967;165:925-32.

Downloads

Published

2023-01-05 — Updated on 2023-01-06

Versions

How to Cite

Kalokhe, S. A., Sonawane, R., Devdikar, S., & Narshetty, G. S. (2023). Single interrupted vs. continuous all layer closure in bowel anastomosis in emergency surgeries: a comparative study. International Journal of Research in Medical Sciences, 11(2), 518–522. https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20233678 (Original work published January 5, 2023)

Issue

Section

Original Research Articles