A comparison of extra-mucosal single layer interrupted repair vs conventional double layer repair of intestinal anastomosis: a hospital-based study

Alfred Baruah; Dhirendra Nath Choudhury; Kamal Krishna Patowary

doi:10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20243722

Authors

Alfred Baruah Department of General Surgery, Tezpur Medical College and Hospital, Tezpur, Sonitpur, Assam, India
Dhirendra Nath Choudhury Department of General Surgery, Tezpur Medical College and Hospital, Tezpur, Sonitpur, Assam, India
Kamal Krishna Patowary Department of General Surgery, Tezpur Medical College and Hospital, Tezpur, Sonitpur, Assam, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20243722

Keywords:

Anastomotic leak, Cost-effectiveness, Double-layer repair, Intestinal anastomosis, Single-layer repair, Surgical outcomes

Abstract

Background: Intestinal anastomosis is a critical surgical technique used to resect and reconnect segments of the gastrointestinal tract. Traditional double-layered techniques using both absorbable and non-absorbable sutures have been widely used. However, single-layer anastomosis is gaining interest due to its simplicity, cost-effectiveness, and reduced operating time. This study aims to compare the outcomes between extra-mucosal single-layer interrupted repair and conventional double-layer repair.

Methods: A prospective, randomized controlled study was conducted over six months with 42 patients undergoing intestinal resection and anastomosis. Patients were randomized into two groups: single-layer anastomosis (Group A) and double-layer anastomosis (Group B). Both groups were monitored for key outcomes such as anastomotic leak, return of bowel function, surgical site infection, and hospital stay.

Results: The single-layer technique showed a significantly shorter operative time (23.8±2.5 minutes) compared to the double-layer technique (33.1±2.6 minutes). There were no statistically significant differences in anastomotic leak rates, re-interventions, or surgical site infections between the two groups. The cost of materials was lower for single-layer anastomosis.

Conclusions: Single-layer anastomosis offers a time-efficient, cost-effective alternative to double-layer anastomosis with comparable clinical outcomes. The findings support the broader adoption of the single-layer technique, particularly in resource-limited settings.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Saha H, Ghosh D, Ghosh T, Burman S, Saha K. Demographic study and management of colonic atresia: single-center experience with review of literature. J Ind Associa Pediatr Surg. 2018;23(4):206-11.

Hiranyakas A, Da Silva G, Denoya P, Shawki S, Wexner SD. Colorectal anastomotic stricture: Is it associated with inadequate colonic mobilization? Tech Coloproctol. 2013;17(5):371-5.

Senn N. Enterorrhaphy; its history, technique and present status. Jama. 1893;21:215-35.

Goulder F. Bowel anastomoses: the theory, the practice and the evidence base. World J Gastrointest Surg. 2012;4(9):208.

Sakr A, Emile SH, Abdallah E, Thabet W, Khafagy W. Predictive factors for small intestinal and colonic anastomotic leak: a multivariate analysis. Ind J Surg. 2017;79(6):555-62.

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.

Burch JM, Franciose RJ, Moore EE, Biffl WL, Offner PJ. Single-layer continuous versus two-layer interrupted intestinal anastomosis: a prospective randomized trial. Ann Surg. 2000;231(6):832-7.

Aslam V, Bilal A, Khan A, Bilal M, Zainulabideen AM. Gastroesophageal anastomosis: single-layer versus double-layer technique-an experience on 50 cases. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 2008;20(3):6-9.

Khan RA, Dilawaiz M, Hameed F, Akram CM, Ahmed B. Intestinal anastomosis: comparative evaluation for safety, cost effectiveness, morbidity and complication of single versus double layer. Profess Medi J. 2010;17(02):232-4.

Khair MA, Uddin MA, Khanam F, Bhuiyan MR, Reza E, Rahman MH, Shawon MR. Single-layer gastrointestinal anastomosis in gastric cancer surgery. Mymensingh Med J. 2013;22(2):237-40.

Irvin TT, Goligher JC, Johnston D. A randomized prospective clinical trial of single-layer and two-layer inverting intestinal anastomoses. J Brit Surg. 1973;60(6):457-60.

Everett WG. A comparison of one layer and two layer techniques for colorectal anastomosis. J Brit Surg. 1975;62(2):135-40.

Ordorica-Flores RM, Bracho-Blanchet E, Nieto-Zermeño J, Reyes-Retana R, Tovilla-Mercado JM, Leon-Villanueva V, et al. Intestinal anastomosis in children: a comparative study between two different techniques. J Pediatr Surg. 1998;33(12):1757-9.

Goligher JC, Lee PWG, Simpkins KC, Lintott DJ. A controlled comparison of one- and two-layer techniques of suture for high and low colorectal anastomoses. Br J Surg. 1977;64(9):609-14.

Maurya SD, Gupta HC, Tewari A, Khan SS, Sharma BD. Double layer versus single layer intestinal anastomosis: a clinical trial. Int Surg. 1984;69(4):339-40.

Askarpour S, Sarmast MH, Peyvasteh M, Gholizadeh B. Comparison of single and double layer intestinal anastomosis in Ahwaz educational hospitals (2005-2006). Internet J Surg. 2009;2:23.

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.

Sai KL, Sugumar C. A comparative study of single layer extra mucosal versus conventional double layer anastomosis of intestines in elective and emergency laparotomy. Int Surg J. 2020;7(3):184-8.

Dandi PP, Aaudichya AS, Juneja IA, Vaishnani BV, Bhatt JG. A prospective comparative study of intestinal anastomosis, single layer extramucosal versus double layer. Int Res J Med Sci. 2015;3(9):2099-2104.

Abd AA, Sultan EA, Soliman MK, El-Anany MI. Comparative study between single layer versus double layer anastomotic technique for small intestinal anastomosis in adults. Am J Surg. 2021;50(12):2555-64.