Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 286

Original article / research
Table of Contents - Year : 2017 | Month : June | Volume : 11 | Issue : 6 | Page : PC01 - PC04

Single Layered Versus Double Layered Intestinal Anastomosis: A Randomized Controlled Trial PC01-PC04

Sibabrata Kar, Vandana Mohapatra, Surendra Singh, Pratap Kumar Rath, Tapas Ranjan Behera

Correspondence
Dr. Sibabrata Kar,
Assistant Professor, Department of General Surgery, Shri Ramachandra Bhanj (S.C.B) Medical College,
Cuttack-753007, Odisha, India.
E-mail: drsbk75@yahoo.com

Introduction: Gastrointestinal anastomosis is one of the most common procedures being performed in oesophagogastric, hepatobiliary, bariatric, small bowel and colorectal surgery; however, the safety and efficacy of single layer or double layer anastomotic technique is still unclear.

Aim: To assess and compare the efficacy, safety and cost effectiveness of single layered versus double layered intestinal anastomosis.

Materials and Methods: This prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled comparative study comprised of patients who underwent intestinal resection and anastomosis. They were randomly assigned to undergo either single layered extra-mucosal anastomosis (Group-A) or double layered intestinal anastomosis (Group-B). Primary outcome measures included average time taken for anastomosis, postoperative complications, mean duration of hospital stay and cost of suture material used; secondary outcome measures assessed the postoperative return of bowel function. Statistical analysis was done by Chi-square test and student t-test.

Results: A total of 97 participants were randomized. Fifty patients were allocated to single layered extramucosal continuous anastomosis (Group-A) and 47 patients to double layered anastomosis (Group-B). The patients in each group were well matched for age, sex and diagnosis. The mean time taken for anastomosis (15.122.27 minutes in Group-A versus 24.382.26 minutes in Group-B) and the length of hospital stay (5.901.43 days in Group-A versus 7.291.89 days in Group-B) was significantly shorter in Group-A {p-value <0.001}. The postoperative return of bowel function was quicker in the single layer group (2.421.11 days) as compared to the double layer group (3.11.34 days). The cost of suture material used was relatively more in the single layered group (564 INR vs. 480 INR) which might be the only factor favoring a double layered anastomosis. However, there was no significant difference in the complication rates between the two groups.

Conclusion: It can be concluded that single layered extramucosal continuous intestinal anastomosis is equally safe and perhaps more cost effective than the conventional double layered method and may represent the optimal choice for routine surgical practice.