DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20150333

A prospective comparative study of intestinal anastomosis, single layer extramucosal versus double layer

Pravin P. Dandi, Abhay S. Aaudichya, Iliyas A. Juneja, Bhavesh V. Vaishnani, Jatin G. Bhatt

Abstract


Background: Intestinal anastomosis is an operative procedure that is of central importance in the practice of surgery. Intestinal anastomosis after resection of bowel may be of various types and techniques. This prospective comparative study is performed to evaluate the safety in term of anastomotic leak of single layer interrupted extramucosal technique as compared to conventional double layer technique.

Methods: The patients selected for this study are those who were admitted with various clinical conditions requiring resection and anastomosis of small or large bowel presented to P.D.U. Medical College & Hospital, Rajkot between a period of August 2012 to December 2014. A total of 50 patients were included in the study. All the patients above the age of 18 years and less than 60 years, requiring intestinal anastomosis on emergency or electively, were included in the study and those requiring anastomosis to esophageal, gastric and duodenal anastomosis were excluded and randomly allotted single layer and double layer groups and results such as anastomotic leak rate, duration for anastomosis, number of suture material required noted.

Results: Mean duration required for single layer anastomosis was 19.6 minutes and for double layer anastomosis was 29.5 minutes and double number of suture material used in double layer anastomosis with equal anastomotic leak rate (6%) in each group.

Conclusions: Single layer interrupted extramucosal technique required significantly less duration for anastomosis, is cost effective with no significant difference in anastomotic leak rate and  as safe as conventional double layer technique.

 


Keywords


Single layer anastomosis, Double layer anastomosis, Anastomotic leak

Full Text:

PDF

References


Yeo CJ. Operations for alimentary tract. In Daniel. T. Dempsey. Shackelford’s surgery of the Alimentary Tract.6th edition, vol1, Elsevier, Philadelphia, 2007;1025-33.

Neil JM, Shazad A. Intestinal anastomosis. In ACS Surgery: principles and practice. 7th edition. Gastrointestinal Tract and Abdomen, 2008. Deckers; Chapter 29.

Shikata S, Yamagishi H, Taji Y, Shimada T, Noguchi Y. Single-versus two-layer intestinal anastomosis: a metaanalysis. BMC Surgery. 2006;6:2.

Rajput MJ, Memon AS, Rani S, Khan AI. Use of single layer extra mucosal interrupted suture intestinal anastomosis: A prospective analytical study on 72 patients. Jlumhs. 2009;08(01).

Shahnam Askarpour, Mohammad Hossein Sarmast, Mehran Peyvasteh, Behnam Gholizadeh. Comparision of single and double layer intestinal anastomosis in Ahwaz educational hospitals (2005-2006). Int J of sur. 2010;23(2).

Lembert A. Memoire sur l‟enteroraphie avec la description dun proceed nouveau pour partier cite operation chirurgical. Rep Gen Anat Physiol Path. 1826;2:100.

Travers B. Enquiry into the process of nature in repairing injuries of the intestine. 1812; Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown and Green, London.

Hautefeuille P. Reflexion’s sur les sutures digestives: a propos de 570 sutures accomplies depuis 5 ans au surjet monoplan de monobrin. Chirurgic. 1976;102:153–65.

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

Garude K, Tandel C, Rao S, Shah NJ. Single Layered Intestinal Anastomosis: A Safe and Economic Technique; Indian J Surg. 2013;75(4):290–3.

Ahmed N. Comparative study between single layers vs. double layered bowel anastomosis in tertiary care hospital. Dissertation to Rajiv Gandhi University Medical Science, Bengaluru, Karnataka. 2014; 82-95.

Khan RAA, Hameed F, Ahmed B, Dilawaiz M, Akram M. Intestinal anastomosis; Comparative evaluation of safety, cost effectiveness, morbidity and complication of single versus double layer. Professional Med J. 2010;17(2);232-4.