Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2012 Feb 15;2012(2):CD003144.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003144.pub2.

Stapled versus handsewn methods for colorectal anastomosis surgery

Cristiane B Neutzling  1 , Suzana A S Lustosa, Igor M Proenca, Edina M K da Silva, Delcio Matos
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Stapled versus handsewn methods for colorectal anastomosis surgery

Cristiane B Neutzling et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Previous systematic reviews comparing stapled and handsewn colorectal anastomosis that are available in the medical literature have not shown either technique to be superior. An update of this systematic review was performed to find out if there are any data that properly answer this question.

Objectives: To compare the safety and effectiveness of stapled and handsewn colorectal anastomosis surgery. The following primary hypothesis was tested: the stapled technique is more effective because it decreases the level of complications.

Search methods: A computerized search was performed in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE according to the strategies of the Colorectal Cancer Group of The Cochrane Collaboration. There were no limits upon language, date or other criteria. A revised search strategy was performed for this updated version of the review May 2011.

Selection criteria: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which stapled and handsewn colorectal anastomosis techniques were compared. Participants were adult patients undergoing elective colorectal anastomosis surgery. The interventions were endoluminal circular stapler and handsewn colorectal anastomosis surgery. Outcomes considered were a) mortality; b) overall anastomotic dehiscence; c) clinical anastomotic dehiscence; d) radiological anastomotic dehiscence; e) stricture; f) anastomotic haemorrhage; g) reoperation; h) wound infection; i) anastomosis duration; and j) hospital stay.

Data collection and analysis: Data were independently analysed by the two review authors (CBN, SASL) and cross-checked. The methodological quality of each trial was assessed by the same two authors. After searching the literature for this update, no study was added to those in the previous version of this review. Details of randomizations (generation and concealment), blinding, whether an intention-to-treat analysis was done or not, and the number of patients lost to follow-up were recorded. The analysis of the risk of bias was updated according to the software Review Manager 5.1. The results of each RCT were summarized on an intention-to-treat basis in 2 x 2 tables for each outcome. External validity was defined by the characteristics of the participants, interventions and the outcomes. The RCTs were stratified according to the level of colorectal anastomosis. The risk difference (RD) method (random-effects model) and number needed to treat (NNT) for dichotomous outcome measures and weighted mean differences (WMD) for continuous outcomes measures, with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI), were presented in this review. Statistical heterogeneity was evaluated using a funnel plot and the Chi(2) test.

Main results: Of the 1233 patients enrolled in nine identified trials, 622 were treated with staples and 611 with manual suture. The following main results were obtained. a) Mortality, result based on 901 patients: RD -0.6%, 95% CI -2.8% to +1.6%. b) Overall dehiscence, result based on 1233 patients: RD 0.2%, 95% CI -5.0% to +5.3%. c) Clinical anastomotic dehiscence, result based on 1233 patients: RD -1.4%, 95% CI -5.2 to +2.3%. d) Radiological anastomotic dehiscence, result based on 825 patients: RD 1.2%, 95% CI -4.8% to +7.3%. e) Stricture, result based on 1042 patients: RD 4.6%, 95% CI 1.2% to 8.1%; NNT 17, 95% CI 12 to 31. f) Anastomotic haemorrhage, result based on 662 patients: RD 2.7%, 95% CI -0.1% to +5.5%. g) Reoperation, result based on 544 patients: RD 3.9%, 95% CI 0.3% to 7.4%. h) Wound infection, result based on 567 patients: RD 1.0%, 95% CI -2.2% to +4.3%. i) Anastomosis duration, result based on one study (159 patients): WMD -7.6 minutes, 95% CI -12.9 to -2.2 minutes. j) Hospital stay, result based on one study (159 patients): WMD 2.0 days, 95% CI -3.27 to +7.2 days.

Authors' conclusions: The evidence found was insufficient to demonstrate any superiority of stapled over handsewn techniques in colorectal anastomosis surgery, regardless of the level of anastomosis. There were no randomised clinical trials comparing these two types of anastomosis in elective conditions in the last decade. The relevance of this research question has possibly lost its strength where elective surgery is concerned. However, in risk situations, such as emergency surgery, trauma and inflammatory bowel disease, new clinical trials are needed.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

None.

Figures

1.1
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1 All studies, Outcome 1 mortality.
1.2
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1 All studies, Outcome 2 overall dehiscence.
1.3
1.3. Analysis
Comparison 1 All studies, Outcome 3 clinical dehiscence.
1.4
1.4. Analysis
Comparison 1 All studies, Outcome 4 radiological dehiscence.
1.5
1.5. Analysis
Comparison 1 All studies, Outcome 5 stricture.
1.6
1.6. Analysis
Comparison 1 All studies, Outcome 6 hemorrhage.
1.7
1.7. Analysis
Comparison 1 All studies, Outcome 7 reoperation.
1.8
1.8. Analysis
Comparison 1 All studies, Outcome 8 wound infection.
1.9
1.9. Analysis
Comparison 1 All studies, Outcome 9 anastomosis duration.
1.10
1.10. Analysis
Comparison 1 All studies, Outcome 10 hospital stay.
2.1
2.1. Analysis
Comparison 2 Studies with adequate allocation concealment, Outcome 1 mortality.
2.2
2.2. Analysis
Comparison 2 Studies with adequate allocation concealment, Outcome 2 overall dehiscence.
2.3
2.3. Analysis
Comparison 2 Studies with adequate allocation concealment, Outcome 3 clinical dehiscence.
2.4
2.4. Analysis
Comparison 2 Studies with adequate allocation concealment, Outcome 4 radiological dehiscence.
2.5
2.5. Analysis
Comparison 2 Studies with adequate allocation concealment, Outcome 5 stricture.
2.6
2.6. Analysis
Comparison 2 Studies with adequate allocation concealment, Outcome 6 hemorrhage.
2.7
2.7. Analysis
Comparison 2 Studies with adequate allocation concealment, Outcome 7 reoperation.
2.8
2.8. Analysis
Comparison 2 Studies with adequate allocation concealment, Outcome 8 wound infection.
2.9
2.9. Analysis
Comparison 2 Studies with adequate allocation concealment, Outcome 9 anastomosis duration.
2.10
2.10. Analysis
Comparison 2 Studies with adequate allocation concealment, Outcome 10 hospital stay.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

References to studies included in this review

Beart 1991 {published data only}
    1. Beart Jr RW, Kelly KA. Randomized prospective evaluation of EEA stapler colorectal anastomoses. American Journal of Surgery 1981;141:143‐7. - PubMed
Elhadad 1990 {published data only}
    1. Elhaddad A. Anastomoses colo‐rectales: à la main ou à la machine. Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen 1990;116:425‐8.
Fingerhut 1994 {published data only}
    1. Fingerhut A, Hay JM, Elhaddad A, Lacaine F, Flamant Y. Supraperitoneal colorectal anastomosis: handsewn versus circular staples: a controlled clinical trial. Surgery 1995;116:484‐90. - PubMed
Fingerhut 1995 {published data only}
    1. Fingerhut A, Hay JM, Elhaddad A, Lacaine F, Flamant Y. Supraperitoneal colorectal anastomosis: handsewn vs. circular staples: a controlled clinical trial. Surgery 1995;118:479‐84. - PubMed
Gonzalez 1987 {published data only}
    1. Gonzalez EM, Selas PR, Molina DM, Sanz RG, Martinez RR, Gonzalez JS, et al. Results of surgery for cancer of the rectum with sphincter conservation. Acta Oncologica 1989;2:241‐4. - PubMed
Kracht 1991 {published data only}
    1. Kracht M. Le point sur les meilleurs anastomoses après reséction colique. Annales de chirurgie 1991;45:295‐8. - PubMed
McGinn 1985 {published data only}
    1. McGinn FP, Gartell PC, Clifford PC, Brunton FJ. Staples or sutures to colorectal anastomoses: prospective randomized trial. The British Journal of Surgery 1985;72:603‐5. - PubMed
Sarker 1994 {published data only}
    1. Sarker SK, Chaudhry R, Sinhab VK. A comparison of stapled vs. handsewn anastomoses in anterior resection for carcinoma rectum. Indian Journal of Cancer 1994;31:133‐7. - PubMed
Thiede 1984 {published data only}
    1. Thiede A, Schubert G, Poser HL, Jostardnt L. Technic of rectum anastomoses in rectum resection, a controlled study: instrumental suture versus hand suture [Zur technik der rectumanastomosen bei rectumresektionen]. Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen 1984;55(5):326‐35. - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

Bocassanta 2006 {published data only}
    1. Boccasanta P, Venturi M, Barbieri S, Roviaro G. Impact of new technologies on the clinical and functional outcome of Altemeier's procedure: a randomized, controlled trial. Diseases of the Colon and Rectum 2006 May;49(5):652‐60. - PubMed
Cajozzo 1990 {published data only}
    1. Cajozzo M, Compagno G, DiTora P, Spallita SI, Bazan P. Advantages and disadvantages of mechanical vs. manual anastomoses in colorectal surgery. Acta Chirurgica Scandinavica 1990;156:167‐9. - PubMed
Catena 2004 {published data only}
    1. Catena F, Donna M, Gagliardi S, Avanzolini A, Taffurelli M. Stapled versus hand‐sewn anastomoses in emergency intestinal surgery: results of a prospective randomized study. Surgery Today 2004;34(2):123‐6. - PubMed
Choy 2007 {published data only}
    1. Choy PYG, Bissett IP, Docherty JG, Parry BR, Merrie A, Fitzgerald A. Stapled versus handsewn methods for ileocolic anastomoses. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, Issue 9 Art. No.: CD004320.. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004320.pub3] - DOI - PubMed
Demetriades 2002 {published data only}
    1. Demetriades D, Murray JA, Chan LS, Ordonez C, Bowley D, Nagy KK, et al. Handsewn versus stapled anastomosis in penetrating colon injuries requiring resection: a multicenter study. The Journal of Trauma 2002 Jan;52(1):117‐21. - PubMed
Didolkar 1985 {published data only}
    1. Didolkar MS, Reed WP, Elias EG, Schnaper LA, Brown SD, Chaudhary SM. A prospective randomized study of sutured vs. stapled bowel anastomosis in patientes with cancer. Cancer 1986;57:456‐60. - PubMed
Everett 1986 {published data only}
    1. Everett WG. A comparison of layer and two layer techniques for colorectal anastomosis. The British Journal of Surgery 1975;62:135‐40. - PubMed
Fukunaga 2007 {published data only}
    1. Fukunaga Y, Higashino M, Tanimura S, Osugi H. Triangulating stapling technique for reconstruction after colectomy. Hepatogastroenterology 2007 Mar;54(74):414‐7. - PubMed
Ikeuchy 2000 {published data only}
    1. Ikeuchi H, Kusunoki M, Yamamura T. Long‐term results of stapled and hand‐sewn anastomoses in patients with Crohn's disease. Digestive Surgery 2000;17(5):493‐6. - PubMed
Korolija 2008 {published data only}
    1. Korolija D. The current evidence on stapled versus hand‐sewn anastomoses in the digestive tract. Minimally Invasive Therapy & Allied Technologies 2008;17(3):151‐4. - PubMed
Laurent 2005 {published data only}
    1. Laurent A, Parc Y, McNamara D, Parc R, Tiret E. Colonic J‐pouch‐anal anastomosis for rectal cancer: a prospective, randomized study comparing handsewn vs. stapled anastomosis. Diseases of the Colon and Rectum 2005 Apr;48(4):729‐34. - PubMed
Lovegrove 2006 {published data only}
    1. Lovegrove RE, Constantinides VA, Heriot AG, Athanasiou T, Darzi A, Remzi FH, et al. A comparison of hand‐sewn versus stapled ileal pouch anal anastomosis (IPAA) following proctocolectomy: a meta‐analysis of 4183 patients. Annals of Surgery 2006 Jul;244(1):18‐26. - PMC - PubMed
McLeod 2009 {published data only}
    1. McLeod RS, Wolff BG, Ross S, Parkes R, McKenzie M, Investigators of the CAST Trial. Recurrence of Crohn's disease after ileocolic resection is not affected by anastomotic type: results of a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. Diseases of the Colon and Rectum 2009 May;52(5):919‐27. - PubMed
Nakagoe 2005 {published data only}
    1. Nakagoe T, Ishikawa H, Sawai T, Tsuji T, Takeshita H, Nanashima A, et al. Oncological outcome of ultra‐low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision for carcinoma of the lower third of the rectum: Comparison of intrapelvic double‐stapled anastomosis and transanal coloanal anastomosis. Hepatogastroenterology 2005 Nov‐Dec;52(66):1692‐7. - PubMed
Papp 2007 {published data only}
    1. Papp Z, Szalai L, Molnar G, Czako T, Assefa A, Petri I. Evaluation of colonic anastomoses performed in the last twenty‐five years. Orvosi Hetilap 2007 Jan;148(3):117‐20. - PubMed
Reiling 1980 {published data only}
    1. Reiling RB, Reiling Jr WA, Bernie WA, Huffer AB, Perkins NC, Eliott DW. Prospective controlled study of gastrointestinal stapled anastomosis. American Journal of Surgery 1980;139:147‐52. - PubMed
Resegotti 2005 {published data only}
    1. Resegotti A, Astegiano M, Farina EC, Ciccone G, Avagnina G, Giustetto A, et al. Side‐to‐side stapled anastomosis strongly reduces anastomotic leak rates in Crohn’s disease surgery. Diseases of the Colon and Rectum 2005 March;48(3):464‐8. - PubMed
Shelygin 2010 {published data only}
    1. Shelygin YA, Chernyshov SV, Rybakov EG. Stapled ileostomy closure results in reduction of postoperative morbidity. Techniques in Coloproctology 2010 Mar;14(1):19‐23. - PubMed
West 1991 {published data only}
    1. West of Scotland and Highland Anastomosis Study Group. Suturing or stapling in gastrointestinal surgery: a prospective randomized study. The British Journal of Surgery 1991;78:337‐41. - PubMed
Wrighton 2008 {published data only}
    1. Wrighton L, Curtis JL, Gollin G. Stapled anastomosis in infants. Journal of Pediatric Surgery 2008 Dec;43(12):2231‐4. - PubMed

Additional references

Docherty 1995
    1. Docherty JG, McGregor JR, Akyol AM, Murray GD, Galloway DJ. Comparison of manually constructed and stapled anastomoses in colorectal surgery. West of Scotland and Highland Anastomosis Study Group. Annals of Surgery 1995 Feb;22(2):176‐84. - PMC - PubMed
Fain 1975
    1. Fain SN, Patin CS, Morgenstern L. Use of a mechanical suturing apparatus in low colorectal anastomosis. Archives of Surgery 1975;110:1079‐82. - PubMed
Heald 1981
    1. Heald RJ, Leciester RJ. The low stapled anastomosis. The British Journal of Surgery 1981;68:333‐7. - PubMed
Higgins 2011
    1. Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration. Available from www.cochrane‐handbook.org, 2011.
Karanjia 1994
    1. Karanjia ND, Corder AP, Bern P, Heald RJ. Leakage from stapled low anastomosis after total mesorectal excision for carcinoma of the rectum. The British Journal of Surgery 1994;81:1224‐6. - PubMed
MacRae 1998
    1. MacRae HM, McLeod RS. Handsewn vs. stapled anastomoses in colon and rectal surgery: a meta‐analysis. Diseases of the Colon and Rectum 1998;41(2):180‐9. - PubMed
Mann 1996
    1. Mann B, Kleinschmidt S, Stremmel W. Prospective study of hand‐sutured anastomosis after colorectal resection. The British Journal of Surgery 1996;83:29‐31. - PubMed
Matos 1996
    1. Matos D. Compression intestinal anastomosis with AKA Russian instrument: analysis of clinical, radiological and endoscopic results. Personal communication 1996.
Mealy 1992
    1. Mealy K, Burke P, Hyland J. Anterior resection without a defunctioning colostomy: questions of safety. The British Journal of Surgery 1992 April;79(4):305‐7. - PubMed
Ravitch 1979
    1. Ravitch MM, Steichen FM. A stapling instrument for end‐to‐end inverting anastomosis in the gastrointestinal tract. Annals of Surgery 1979;189(6):791‐7. - PMC - PubMed
Shahinian 1980
    1. Shahinian TK, Bowen JR, Dorman BA, Sderberger CH, Thompson WR. Experience with the EEA stapling device. American Journal of Surgery 1980;139:549‐53. - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources