Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy 7/2018

01-07-2018

Does advancement in stapling technology with triple-row and enhanced staple configurations confer additional safety? A matched comparison of 340 stapled ileocolic anastomoses

Authors: Chi Chung Foo, Alston Ho On Chiu, Jeremy Yip, Wai Lun Law

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 7/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Over the past few decades, studies have focused on the safety of stapled anastomosis, especially when compared to that of the handsewn technique. However, studies on the improvement of stapling technology are limited. This study aimed to investigate whether linear triple-row staples (tri-staples) had any advantage over double-row staples.

Methods

This is a retrospective review of all cases of functional end-to-end anastomoses with linear staplers performed at two centers between 2005 and 2015. Data were retrieved from a prospectively maintained database. Cases of anastomoses performed with double-row (DS) and triple-row (TS) staples were matched according to propensity scores. The rates of anastomotic leakage, bleeding, reoperation, and 30-day mortality were compared.

Results

Functional end-to-end ileocolic anastomoses were performed in 563 consecutive patients during the study period. Double- and triple-row stapling devices were used in 389 and 174 anastomoses, respectively. With propensity score matching, 170 cases were chosen from each group. Both groups showed comparable baseline characteristics. The anastomotic leakage, anastomotic bleeding, and intra-abdominal collection rates were 2.4 and 0% (p = 0.123), 1.2 and 0% (p = 0.499), and 3.5 and 1.2% (p = 0.283) for DS and TS, respectively. The reoperation and 30-day mortality rates were 5.9 and 1.8% (p = 0.048) and 0.6 and 1.2% (p = 1.000) for DS and TS, respectively. The median lengths of stay were 5 and 6 days (p = 0.072) for DS and TS, respectively.

Conclusion

Anastomoses with triple-row staples tended to have a lower morbidity rate, but a significant advantage over double-row staples was not demonstrated in this study.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Kwaan MR, Al-Refaie WB, Parsons HM, Chow CJ, Rothenberger DA, Habermann EB (2013) Are right-sided colectomy outcomes different from left-sided colectomy outcomes?: study of patients with colon cancer in the ACS NSQIP database. JAMA Surg 148:504–510CrossRefPubMed Kwaan MR, Al-Refaie WB, Parsons HM, Chow CJ, Rothenberger DA, Habermann EB (2013) Are right-sided colectomy outcomes different from left-sided colectomy outcomes?: study of patients with colon cancer in the ACS NSQIP database. JAMA Surg 148:504–510CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Masoomi H, Buchberg B, Dang P, Carmichael JC, Mills S, Stamos MJ (2011) Outcomes of right versus left colectomy for colon cancer. J Gastrointest Surg 15:2023–2028CrossRefPubMed Masoomi H, Buchberg B, Dang P, Carmichael JC, Mills S, Stamos MJ (2011) Outcomes of right versus left colectomy for colon cancer. J Gastrointest Surg 15:2023–2028CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Benedix F, Kube R, Meyer F, Schmidt U, Gastinger I, Lippert H (2010) Comparison of 17,641 patients with right- and left-sided colon cancer: differences in epidemiology, perioperative course, histology, and survival. Dis Colon Rectum 53:57–64CrossRefPubMed Benedix F, Kube R, Meyer F, Schmidt U, Gastinger I, Lippert H (2010) Comparison of 17,641 patients with right- and left-sided colon cancer: differences in epidemiology, perioperative course, histology, and survival. Dis Colon Rectum 53:57–64CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Hammond J, Lim S, Wan Y, Gao X, Patkar A (2014) The burden of gastrointestinal anastomotic leaks: an evaluation of clinical and economic outcomes. J Gastrointest Surg 18:1176–1185CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Hammond J, Lim S, Wan Y, Gao X, Patkar A (2014) The burden of gastrointestinal anastomotic leaks: an evaluation of clinical and economic outcomes. J Gastrointest Surg 18:1176–1185CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
go back to reference Eagye KJ, Nicolau DP (2009) Deep and organ/space infections in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery: incidence and impact on hospital length of stay and costs. Am J Surg 198:359–367CrossRefPubMed Eagye KJ, Nicolau DP (2009) Deep and organ/space infections in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery: incidence and impact on hospital length of stay and costs. Am J Surg 198:359–367CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Choi HK, Law WL, Ho JW (2006) Leakage after resection and intraperitoneal anastomosis for colorectal malignancy: analysis of risk factors. Dis Colon Rectum 49:1719–1725CrossRefPubMed Choi HK, Law WL, Ho JW (2006) Leakage after resection and intraperitoneal anastomosis for colorectal malignancy: analysis of risk factors. Dis Colon Rectum 49:1719–1725CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Morris AM, Baldwin LM, Matthews B, Dominitz JA, Barlow WE, Dobie SA, Billingsley KG (2007) Reoperation as a quality indicator in colorectal surgery: a population-based analysis. Ann Surg 245:73–79CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Morris AM, Baldwin LM, Matthews B, Dominitz JA, Barlow WE, Dobie SA, Billingsley KG (2007) Reoperation as a quality indicator in colorectal surgery: a population-based analysis. Ann Surg 245:73–79CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
go back to reference Walker KG, Bell SW, Rickard MJ, Mehanna D, Dent OF, Chapuis PH, Bokey EL (2004) Anastomotic leakage is predictive of diminished survival after potentially curative resection for colorectal cancer. Ann Surg 240:255–259CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Walker KG, Bell SW, Rickard MJ, Mehanna D, Dent OF, Chapuis PH, Bokey EL (2004) Anastomotic leakage is predictive of diminished survival after potentially curative resection for colorectal cancer. Ann Surg 240:255–259CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
go back to reference Nesbakken A, Nygaard K, Lunde OC (2001) Outcome and late functional results after anastomotic leakage following mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Br J Surg 88:400–404CrossRefPubMed Nesbakken A, Nygaard K, Lunde OC (2001) Outcome and late functional results after anastomotic leakage following mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Br J Surg 88:400–404CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Steichen FM (1968) The use of staplers in anatomical side-to-side and functional end-to-end enteroanastomoses. Surgery 64:948–953PubMed Steichen FM (1968) The use of staplers in anatomical side-to-side and functional end-to-end enteroanastomoses. Surgery 64:948–953PubMed
12.
go back to reference Brennan SS, Pickford IR, Evans M, Pollock AV (1982) Staples or sutures for colonic anastomoses–a controlled clinical trial. Br J Surg 69:722–724CrossRefPubMed Brennan SS, Pickford IR, Evans M, Pollock AV (1982) Staples or sutures for colonic anastomoses–a controlled clinical trial. Br J Surg 69:722–724CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Didolkar MS, Reed WP, Elias EG, Schnaper LA, Brown SD, Chaudhary SM (1986) A prospective randomized study of sutured versus stapled bowel anastomoses in patients with cancer. Cancer 57:456–460CrossRefPubMed Didolkar MS, Reed WP, Elias EG, Schnaper LA, Brown SD, Chaudhary SM (1986) A prospective randomized study of sutured versus stapled bowel anastomoses in patients with cancer. Cancer 57:456–460CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference McLeod RS, Wolff BG, Ross S, Parkes R, McKenzie M (2009) Recurrence of Crohn’s disease after ileocolic resection is not affected by anastomotic type: results of a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. Dis Colon Rectum 52:919–927CrossRefPubMed McLeod RS, Wolff BG, Ross S, Parkes R, McKenzie M (2009) Recurrence of Crohn’s disease after ileocolic resection is not affected by anastomotic type: results of a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. Dis Colon Rectum 52:919–927CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Simillis C, Purkayastha S, Yamamoto T, Strong SA, Darzi AW, Tekkis PP (2007) A meta-analysis comparing conventional end-to-end anastomosis vs. other anastomotic configurations after resection in Crohn’s disease. Dis Colon Rectum 50:1674–1687CrossRefPubMed Simillis C, Purkayastha S, Yamamoto T, Strong SA, Darzi AW, Tekkis PP (2007) A meta-analysis comparing conventional end-to-end anastomosis vs. other anastomotic configurations after resection in Crohn’s disease. Dis Colon Rectum 50:1674–1687CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Ritchey ML, Lally KP, Ostericher R (1993) Comparison of different techniques of stapled bowel anastomoses in a canine model. Arch Surg 128:1365–1367CrossRefPubMed Ritchey ML, Lally KP, Ostericher R (1993) Comparison of different techniques of stapled bowel anastomoses in a canine model. Arch Surg 128:1365–1367CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference He X, Chen Z, Huang J, Lian L, Rouniyar S, Wu X, Lan P (2014) Stapled side-to-side anastomosis might be better than handsewn end-to-end anastomosis in ileocolic resection for Crohn’s disease: a meta-analysis. Dig Dis Sci 59:1544–1551CrossRefPubMed He X, Chen Z, Huang J, Lian L, Rouniyar S, Wu X, Lan P (2014) Stapled side-to-side anastomosis might be better than handsewn end-to-end anastomosis in ileocolic resection for Crohn’s disease: a meta-analysis. Dig Dis Sci 59:1544–1551CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Choy PY, Bissett IP, Docherty JG, Parry BR, Merrie A, Fitzgerald A (2011) Stapled versus handsewn methods for ileocolic anastomoses. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 9:Cd004320 Choy PY, Bissett IP, Docherty JG, Parry BR, Merrie A, Fitzgerald A (2011) Stapled versus handsewn methods for ileocolic anastomoses. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 9:Cd004320
19.
go back to reference Leung TT, MacLean AR, Buie WD, Dixon E (2008) Comparison of stapled versus handsewn loop ileostomy closure: a meta-analysis. J Gastrointest Surg 12:939–944CrossRefPubMed Leung TT, MacLean AR, Buie WD, Dixon E (2008) Comparison of stapled versus handsewn loop ileostomy closure: a meta-analysis. J Gastrointest Surg 12:939–944CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Loffler T, Rossion I, Goossen K, Saure D, Weitz J, Ulrich A, Buchler MW, Diener MK (2015) Hand suture versus stapler for closure of loop ileostomy–a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Langenbeck’s Arch Surg 400:193–205CrossRef Loffler T, Rossion I, Goossen K, Saure D, Weitz J, Ulrich A, Buchler MW, Diener MK (2015) Hand suture versus stapler for closure of loop ileostomy–a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Langenbeck’s Arch Surg 400:193–205CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Lustosa SA, Matos D, Atallah AN, Castro AA (2001) Stapled versus handsewn methods for colorectal anastomosis surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 3:Cd003144 Lustosa SA, Matos D, Atallah AN, Castro AA (2001) Stapled versus handsewn methods for colorectal anastomosis surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 3:Cd003144
22.
go back to reference Peel AL, Taylor EW (1991) Proposed definitions for the audit of postoperative infection: a discussion paper. Surgical Infection Study Group. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 73:385–388PubMedPubMedCentral Peel AL, Taylor EW (1991) Proposed definitions for the audit of postoperative infection: a discussion paper. Surgical Infection Study Group. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 73:385–388PubMedPubMedCentral
23.
go back to reference Frye J, Bokey EL, Chapuis PH, Sinclair G, Dent OF (2009) Anastomotic leakage after resection of colorectal cancer generates prodigious use of hospital resources. Colorectal Dis 11:917–920CrossRefPubMed Frye J, Bokey EL, Chapuis PH, Sinclair G, Dent OF (2009) Anastomotic leakage after resection of colorectal cancer generates prodigious use of hospital resources. Colorectal Dis 11:917–920CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Vonlanthen R, Slankamenac K, Breitenstein S, Puhan MA, Muller MK, Hahnloser D, Hauri D, Graf R, Clavien PA (2011) The impact of complications on costs of major surgical procedures: a cost analysis of 1200 patients. Ann Surg 254:907–913CrossRefPubMed Vonlanthen R, Slankamenac K, Breitenstein S, Puhan MA, Muller MK, Hahnloser D, Hauri D, Graf R, Clavien PA (2011) The impact of complications on costs of major surgical procedures: a cost analysis of 1200 patients. Ann Surg 254:907–913CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Bell SW, Walker KG, Rickard MJ, Sinclair G, Dent OF, Chapuis PH, Bokey EL (2003) Anastomotic leakage after curative anterior resection results in a higher prevalence of local recurrence. Br J Surg 90:1261–1266CrossRefPubMed Bell SW, Walker KG, Rickard MJ, Sinclair G, Dent OF, Chapuis PH, Bokey EL (2003) Anastomotic leakage after curative anterior resection results in a higher prevalence of local recurrence. Br J Surg 90:1261–1266CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Marra F, Steffen T, Kalak N, Warschkow R, Tarantino I, Lange J, Zund M (2009) Anastomotic leakage as a risk factor for the long-term outcome after curative resection of colon cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 35:1060–1064CrossRefPubMed Marra F, Steffen T, Kalak N, Warschkow R, Tarantino I, Lange J, Zund M (2009) Anastomotic leakage as a risk factor for the long-term outcome after curative resection of colon cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 35:1060–1064CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Frasson M, Flor-Lorente B, Rodriguez JL, Granero-Castro P, Hervas D, Alvarez Rico MA, Brao MJ, Sanchez Gonzalez JM, Garcia-Granero E (2015) Risk factors for anastomotic leak after colon resection for cancer: multivariate analysis and nomogram from a multicentric, prospective, national study with 3193 patients. Ann Surg 262:321–330CrossRefPubMed Frasson M, Flor-Lorente B, Rodriguez JL, Granero-Castro P, Hervas D, Alvarez Rico MA, Brao MJ, Sanchez Gonzalez JM, Garcia-Granero E (2015) Risk factors for anastomotic leak after colon resection for cancer: multivariate analysis and nomogram from a multicentric, prospective, national study with 3193 patients. Ann Surg 262:321–330CrossRefPubMed
28.
go back to reference Alves A, Panis Y, Trancart D, Regimbeau JM, Pocard M, Valleur P (2002) Factors associated with clinically significant anastomotic leakage after large bowel resection: multivariate analysis of 707 patients. World J Surg 26:499–502CrossRefPubMed Alves A, Panis Y, Trancart D, Regimbeau JM, Pocard M, Valleur P (2002) Factors associated with clinically significant anastomotic leakage after large bowel resection: multivariate analysis of 707 patients. World J Surg 26:499–502CrossRefPubMed
29.
go back to reference Chassin JL, Rifkind KM, Sussman B, Kassel B, Fingaret A, Drager S, Chassin PS (1978) The stapled gastrointestinal tract anastomosis: incidence of postoperative complications compared with the sutured anastomosis. Ann Surg 188:689–696CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Chassin JL, Rifkind KM, Sussman B, Kassel B, Fingaret A, Drager S, Chassin PS (1978) The stapled gastrointestinal tract anastomosis: incidence of postoperative complications compared with the sutured anastomosis. Ann Surg 188:689–696CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
30.
go back to reference Isbister WH (2001) Anastomotic leak in colorectal surgery: a single surgeon’s experience. ANZ J Surg 71:516–520CrossRefPubMed Isbister WH (2001) Anastomotic leak in colorectal surgery: a single surgeon’s experience. ANZ J Surg 71:516–520CrossRefPubMed
31.
go back to reference Leslie A, Steele RJ (2003) The interrupted serosubmucosal anastomosis—still the gold standard. Colorectal Dis 5:362–366CrossRefPubMed Leslie A, Steele RJ (2003) The interrupted serosubmucosal anastomosis—still the gold standard. Colorectal Dis 5:362–366CrossRefPubMed
32.
go back to reference Lipska MA, Bissett IP, Parry BR, Merrie AE (2006) Anastomotic leakage after lower gastrointestinal anastomosis: men are at a higher risk. ANZ J Surg 76:579–585CrossRefPubMed Lipska MA, Bissett IP, Parry BR, Merrie AE (2006) Anastomotic leakage after lower gastrointestinal anastomosis: men are at a higher risk. ANZ J Surg 76:579–585CrossRefPubMed
33.
go back to reference Scher KS, Scott-Conner C, Jones CW, Leach M (1982) A comparison of stapled and sutured anastomoses in colonic operations. Surg Gynecol Obstet 155:489–493PubMed Scher KS, Scott-Conner C, Jones CW, Leach M (1982) A comparison of stapled and sutured anastomoses in colonic operations. Surg Gynecol Obstet 155:489–493PubMed
34.
go back to reference Tang R, Chen HH, Wang YL, Changchien CR, Chen JS, Hsu KC, Chiang JM, Wang JY (2001) Risk factors for surgical site infection after elective resection of the colon and rectum: a single-center prospective study of 2,809 consecutive patients. Ann Surg 234:181–189CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Tang R, Chen HH, Wang YL, Changchien CR, Chen JS, Hsu KC, Chiang JM, Wang JY (2001) Risk factors for surgical site infection after elective resection of the colon and rectum: a single-center prospective study of 2,809 consecutive patients. Ann Surg 234:181–189CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
35.
go back to reference Jestin P, Pahlman L, Gunnarsson U (2008) Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer surgery: a case-control study. Colorectal Dis 10:715–721CrossRefPubMed Jestin P, Pahlman L, Gunnarsson U (2008) Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer surgery: a case-control study. Colorectal Dis 10:715–721CrossRefPubMed
36.
go back to reference Matthiessen P, Hallbook O, Andersson M, Rutegard J, Sjodahl R (2004) Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after anterior resection of the rectum. Colorectal Dis 6:462–469CrossRefPubMed Matthiessen P, Hallbook O, Andersson M, Rutegard J, Sjodahl R (2004) Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after anterior resection of the rectum. Colorectal Dis 6:462–469CrossRefPubMed
37.
go back to reference Golub R, Golub RW, Cantu R Jr, Stein HD (1997) A multivariate analysis of factors contributing to leakage of intestinal anastomoses. J Am Coll Surg 184:364–372PubMed Golub R, Golub RW, Cantu R Jr, Stein HD (1997) A multivariate analysis of factors contributing to leakage of intestinal anastomoses. J Am Coll Surg 184:364–372PubMed
38.
go back to reference Krarup PM, Jorgensen LN, Andreasen AH, Harling H (2012) A nationwide study on anastomotic leakage after colonic cancer surgery. Colorectal Dis 14::e661–e667CrossRef Krarup PM, Jorgensen LN, Andreasen AH, Harling H (2012) A nationwide study on anastomotic leakage after colonic cancer surgery. Colorectal Dis 14::e661–e667CrossRef
39.
go back to reference Bakker IS, Grossmann I, Henneman D, Havenga K, Wiggers T (2014) Risk factors for anastomotic leakage and leak-related mortality after colonic cancer surgery in a nationwide audit. Br J Surg 101:424–432 (discussion 432)CrossRefPubMed Bakker IS, Grossmann I, Henneman D, Havenga K, Wiggers T (2014) Risk factors for anastomotic leakage and leak-related mortality after colonic cancer surgery in a nationwide audit. Br J Surg 101:424–432 (discussion 432)CrossRefPubMed
40.
go back to reference Marinello FG, Baguena G, Lucas E, Frasson M, Hervas D, Flor-Lorente B, Esclapez P, Espi A, Garcia-Granero E (2016) Anastomotic leakage after colon cancer resection: does the individual surgeon matter? Colorectal Dis 18:562–569CrossRefPubMed Marinello FG, Baguena G, Lucas E, Frasson M, Hervas D, Flor-Lorente B, Esclapez P, Espi A, Garcia-Granero E (2016) Anastomotic leakage after colon cancer resection: does the individual surgeon matter? Colorectal Dis 18:562–569CrossRefPubMed
41.
go back to reference Gustafsson P, Jestin P, Gunnarsson U, Lindforss U (2015) Higher frequency of anastomotic leakage with stapled compared to hand-sewn ileocolic anastomosis in a large population-based study. World J Surg 39:1834–1839CrossRefPubMed Gustafsson P, Jestin P, Gunnarsson U, Lindforss U (2015) Higher frequency of anastomotic leakage with stapled compared to hand-sewn ileocolic anastomosis in a large population-based study. World J Surg 39:1834–1839CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Does advancement in stapling technology with triple-row and enhanced staple configurations confer additional safety? A matched comparison of 340 stapled ileocolic anastomoses
Authors
Chi Chung Foo
Alston Ho On Chiu
Jeremy Yip
Wai Lun Law
Publication date
01-07-2018
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 7/2018
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6027-1

Other articles of this Issue 7/2018

Surgical Endoscopy 7/2018 Go to the issue