Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Updates in Surgery
Published in: Updates in Surgery 4/2018

01-12-2018 | Original Article

Barbed versus traditional suture for enterotomy closure after laparoscopic right colectomy with intracorporeal mechanical anastomosis: a case–control study

Authors: Francesco Feroci, Iacopo Giani, Maddalena Baraghini, Luca Romoli, Tiku Zalla, Roberto Quattromani, Stefano Cantafio, Marco Scatizzi

Published in: Updates in Surgery | Issue 4/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Our aim was to establish the safety and efficacy of barbed suture for enterotomy closure after laparoscopic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis. This study included 47 patients who underwent laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with intracorporeal mechanical anastomosis and barbed suture enterotomy closure (barbed suture closure—BSC) for adenocarcinoma (with the exception of T4 lesions and metastasis), compared with 47 matched patients who underwent laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with intracorporeal mechanical anastomosis and conventional suture enterotomy closure (conventional suture closure—CSC) during the same period. Controls were matched for stage, age, and gender via a statistically generated selection of all laparoscopic right hemicolectomies performed from January 2009 until December 2015. There was no difference between the two groups in terms of age, sex, BMI, ASA, co-morbidity, previous abdominal surgery, cancer site and cancer staging. In terms of operating time (median 120 min for BSC and 127.5 min for CSC), histopathological results, surgical site complications (2.1% for BSC and 8.5% for CSC), hospitalization (median 6 days for BSC and 5 days for CSC), readmission rate (0%), there were no differences between the groups (p > 0.05). No significant differences were noted between the two groups in terms of the postoperative course. Our results support that the use of knotless barbed sutures for enterotomy closure after laparoscopic right colectomy with intracorporeal mechanical anastomosis is safe and reproducible.
Literature
1.
Schlinkert RT (1991) Laparoscopic-assisted right hemicolectomy. Dis Colon Rectum 34:1030–1031CrossRef
2.
Tinmouth J, Tomlinson G (2004) Laparoscopically assisted versus open colectomy for colon cancer. N Engl J Med 351(9):933–934CrossRef
3.
Guillou P, Quirke P, Thorpe H et al (2005) Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multicentre randomized controlled trial. Lancet 365:1718–1726CrossRef
4.
Lacy AM, Garcia-Valdecasas JC, Pique JM et al (1995) Short term outcome analysis of a randomized study comparing laparoscopic vs open colectomy for colon cancer. Surg Endosc 9:1101–1105PubMed
5.
The COLOR Study Group (2000) COLOR: a randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic and open resection for colon cancer. Dig Surg 17:617–622CrossRef
6.
Yeo HL, Isaacs AJ, Abelson JS, Milsom JW, Sedrakyan A (2016) Comparison of open, laparoscopic, and robotic colectomies using a large national database: outcomes and trends related to surgery center volume. Dis Colon Rectum 59(6):535–542CrossRef
7.
Jamali FR, Soweid AM, Dimassi H et al (2008) Evaluating the degree of difficulty of laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Arch Surg 143(8):762–767CrossRef
8.
Hellan M, Anderson C, Pigazzi A (2009) Extracorporeal versus intracorporeal anastomosis for laparoscopic right hemicolectomy. JSLS 13(3):312–317PubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Scatizzi M, Kröning KC, Borrelli A et al (2010) Extracorporeal versus intracorporeal anastomosis after laparoscopic right colectomy for cancer: a case-control study. World J Surg 34(12):2902–2908CrossRef
10.
Fabozzi M, Allieta R, Contul RB et al (2010) Comparison of short- and medium-term results between laparoscopically assisted and totally laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a case-control study. Surg Endosc 24(9):2085–2091CrossRef
11.
Grams J, Tong W, Greenstein AJ et al (2010) Comparison of intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis in laparoscopic-assisted hemicolectomy. Surg Endosc 24(8):1886–1891CrossRef
12.
Chaves JA, Idoate CP, Fons JB et al (2011) A case-control study of extracorporeal versus intracorporeal anastomosis in patients subjected to right laparoscopic hemicolectomy. Cir Esp 89(1):24–30CrossRef
13.
Feroci F, Lenzi E, Garzi A et al (2013) Intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis after laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis 28(9):1177–1186CrossRef
14.
Cirocchi R, Trastulli S, Farinella E et al (2013) Intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis during laparoscopic right hemicolectomy—systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Oncol 22(1):1–13CrossRef
15.
Ritter EM, Mcclusky DA, Gallagher AG et al (2005) Real-time objective assessment of knot quality with a portable tensiometer is superior to execution time for assessment of laparoscopic knot-tying performance. Surg Innov 12:233–237CrossRef
16.
Einarsson JI, Chavan NR, Suzuki Y (2011) Use of bidirectional barbed suture in laparoscopic myomectomy: evaluation of perioperative outcomes, safety, and efficacy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 18:92–95CrossRef
17.
Naki MM, Api O, Acioglu HC (2010) Comparative study of a barbed suture, poliglecaprone and stapler in Pfannenstiel incisions performed for benign gynecological procedures: a randomized trial. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 89:1473–1477CrossRef
18.
Siedhoff MT, Yunker AC, Steege JF (2011) Decreased incidence of vaginal cuff dehiscence after laparoscopic closure with bidirectional barbed suture. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 18:218–223CrossRef
19.
Warner JP, Gutowski KA (2009) Abdominoplasty with progressive tension closure using a barbed suture technique. Aesthet Surg J 29:221–225CrossRef
20.
Murtha AP, Kaplan AL, Paglia MJ (2006) Evaluation of a novel technique for wound closure using a barbed suture. Plast Reconstr Surg 117:1769–1780CrossRef
21.
Tewari AK, Srivastava A, Sooriakumaran P (2010) Use of a novel absorbable barbed plastic surgical suture enables a ‘‘self-cinching’’ technique of vesicourethral anastomosis during robot-assisted prostatectomy and improves anastomotic times. J Endourol 24:1645–1650CrossRef
22.
Kaul S, Sammon J, Bhandari A (2010) A novel method of urethrovesical anastomosis during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy using a unidirectional barbed wound closure device: feasibility study and early outcomes in 51 patients. J Endourol 24:1789–1793CrossRef
23.
Williams SB, Alemozaffar M, Lei Y (2010) Randomized controlled trial of barbed polyglyconate versus polyglactin suture for robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy anastomosis: technique and outcomes. Eur Urol 58:875–881CrossRef
24.
Zorn KC, Trinh Q-D, Jeldres C (2012) Prospective randomized trial of barbed polyglyconate suture to facilitate vesico-urethral anastomosis during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: time reduction and cost benefit. BJU Int 109:1526–1532CrossRef
25.
Gililland JM, Anderson LA, Sun G (2012) Perioperative closure related complication rates and cost analysis of barbed suture for closure in TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470:125–129CrossRef
26.
Lee SW, Nomura E, Tokuhara T et al (2011) Laparoscopic technique and initial experience with knotless, unidirectional barbed suture closure for stapleconserving, delta-shaped gastroduodenostomy after distal gastrectomy. J Am Coll Surg 213:39–45CrossRef
27.
De Blasi V, Facy O, Goergen M et al (2013) Barbed versus usual suture for closure of the gastrojejunal anastomosis in laparoscopic gastric bypass: a comparative trial. Obes Surg 23:60–63CrossRef
28.
Bruce J, Krukowski ZH, Al-Khairy G (2001) Systematic review of the definition and measurement of anastomotic leak after gastrointestinal surgery. Br J Surg 88:1157–1168CrossRef
29.
Milone M, Di Minno MN, Galloro G et al (2013) Safety and efficacy of barbed suture for gastrointestinal suture: a prospective and randomized study on obese patients undergoing gastric bypass. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 23(9):756–759CrossRef
30.
Scatizzi M, Kröning KC, Boddi V et al (2009) Fast Track Surgery after laparoscopic colorectal surgery: is it feasible in a General Surgery Unit? Surgery 147(2):219–226CrossRef
31.
Sierzega M, Kolodziejczyk P, Kulig J, Polish Gastric Cancer Study Group (2010) Impact of anastomotic leakage on long-term survival after total gastrectomy for carcinoma of the stomach. Br J Surg 97:1035–1042CrossRef
32.
Jarry J, Wagner T, de Pommerol M (2012) Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: comparison between hand-sewn and mechanical gastrojejunostomy. Updates Surg 64:25–30CrossRef
33.
Ruiz de Adana JC, Hernandez Matias A, Hernandez Bartolome M (2009) Risk of gastrojejunal anastomotic stricture with multifilament and monofilament sutures after hand-sewn laparoscopic gastric bypass: a prospective cohort study. Obes Surg 19:1274–1277CrossRef
34.
Demyttenaere SV, Nau P, Henn M et al (2009) Barbed suture for gastrointestinal closure: a randomized control trial. Surg Innov 16(3):237–242CrossRef
35.
Shikanov S, Wille M, Large M (2009) Knotless closure of the collecting system and renal parenchyma with a novel barbed suture during laparoscopic porcine partial nephrectomy. J Endourol 23:1157–1160CrossRef
36.
Facy O, De Blasi V, Goergen M et al (2013) Laparoscopic gastrointestinal anastomoses using knotless barbed sutures are safe and reproducible: a single-center experience with 201 patients. Surg Endosc 27(10):3841–3845CrossRef
37.
Bautista T, Shabbir A, Rao J et al (2015) Enterotomy closure using knotless and barbed suture in laparoscopic upper gastrointestinal surgeries. Surg Endosc 30(4):1699–1703CrossRef
38.
Palmisano S, Giuricin M, Makovac P et al (2014) Totally hand-sewn anastomosis using barbed suture device during laparoscopic gastric bypass in obese. A feasibility study and preliminary results. Int J Surg 12(12):1385–1389CrossRef
39.
Kassir R, Blanc P, Breton C et al (2015) Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass with the absorbable bidirectional monofilament barbed suture Stratafix®: the hand-sewn technique. Obes Surg 25(2):325–326CrossRef
40.
Wilhelm P, Storz P, Axt S et al (2014) Use of self-retaining barbed suture for rectal wall closure in transanal endoscopic microsurgery. Tech Coloproctol 18(9):813–816CrossRef
41.
Costantino F, Dente M, Perrin P et al (2013) Barbed unidirectional V-Loc 180 suture in laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a study comparing unidirectional barbed monofilament and multifilament absorbable suture. SurgEndosc 27(10):3846–3851
42.
Nemecek E, Negrin L, Beran C et al (2013) The application of the V-Loc closure device for gastrointestinal sutures: a preliminary study. Surg Endosc 27(10):3830–3834CrossRef
43.
Tyner RP, Clifton GT, Fenton SJ (2013) Hand-sewn gastrojejunostomy using knotless unidirectional barbed absorbable suture during laparoscopic gastric bypass. Surg Endosc 27(4):1360–1366CrossRef
44.
Omotosho P, Yurcisin B, Ceppa E et al (2011) In vivo assessment of an absorbable and nonabsorbable knotless barbed suture for laparoscopic single-layer enterotomy closure: a clinical and biomechanical comparison against nonbarbed suture. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 21(10):893–897CrossRef
45.
46.
Vasudevan SP, Dworkin MJ (2013) Small bowel obstruction following laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy. Colorectal Dis 15:1543–1544CrossRef
47.
Bassi A, Tulandi T (2013) Evaluation of total laparoscopic hysterectomy with and without the use of barbed suture. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 35:718–722CrossRef
48.
Donnellan NM, Mansuria SM (2011) Small bowel obstruction resulting from laparoscopic vaginal cuff closure with a barbed suture. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 18:528–530CrossRef
49.
Moran ME, Marsh C, Perrotti M (2007) Bidirectional barbed sutured knotless running anastomosis vs classic van Velthoven in a model system. J Endourol 21:1175–1178CrossRef
50.
51.
Weld KJ, Ames CD, Hruby G (2006) Evaluation of a novel knotless self-anchoring suture material for urinary tract reconstruction. Urology 67:1133–1137CrossRef
52.
Einarsson JI, Vellinga TT, Twijnstra AR (2010) Bidirectional barbed suture: an evaluation of safety and clinical outcomes. JSLS 14:381–385CrossRef
53.
Spah CE, Elkins AD, Wehrenberg A et al (2013) Evaluation of two novel self-anchoring barbed sutures in a prophylactic laparoscopic gastropexy compared with intracorporeal tied knots. Vet Surg 42(8):932–942CrossRef
54.
Kim JC, Lee YK, Lm BS (2007) Comparison of tensile and knot security properties of surgical sutures. J Mater Sci Mater Med 12:2363–2369CrossRef
55.
Tera H, Aberg C (1977) Strength of knots in surgery in relation to type of knot, type of suture material and dimension of the suture thread. Acta Chir Scand 143:75–83PubMed
56.
Arbaugh M, Case B, Monnet E (2013) Biomechanical comparison of Glycomer 631 and Glycomer 631 knotless for use in canine incisional gastropexy. Vet Surg 42:205–209CrossRef
57.
Milone M, Elmore U, Di Salvo E et al (2015) Intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis. Results from a multicentre comparative study on 512 right-sided colorectal cancers. Surg Endosc 29(8):2314–2320CrossRef
58.
Lee KH, Ho J, Akmal Y et al (2013) Short- and long-term outcomes of intracorporeal versus extracorporeal ileocolic anastomosis in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for colon cancer. Surg Endosc 27(6):1986–1990CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Barbed versus traditional suture for enterotomy closure after laparoscopic right colectomy with intracorporeal mechanical anastomosis: a case–control study
Authors
Francesco Feroci
Iacopo Giani
Maddalena Baraghini
Luca Romoli
Tiku Zalla
Roberto Quattromani
Stefano Cantafio
Marco Scatizzi
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Updates in Surgery / Issue 4/2018
Print ISSN: 2038-131X
Electronic ISSN: 2038-3312
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-017-0502-4

Other articles of this Issue 4/2018

Updates in Surgery 4/2018 Go to the issue

Original Article

Sodium hydroxide as a sclerosing agent in patients with neoplastic pleural effusion non-candidates for VATS: results of a minimally invasive protocol

Letter to the Editor

Surgery or antibiotics for acute appendicitis? Take care about study’s design and methodology!

Technical Note

Laparoscopic adhesiolysis: not for all patients, not for all surgeons, not in all centres

Original Article

Post-surgical fecal incontinence

Original Article

Gracilis muscle transposition for the treatment of recurrent rectovaginal and pouch-vaginal fistula: is Crohn’s disease a risk factor for failure? A prospective cohort study

Letter to the Editor

Epitrochlear lymph node basin in melanoma: an extension of the axillary station or an independent basin?