scholarly journals Ileo-colic intra-corporeal anastomosis during robotic right colectomy: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of different techniques

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simone Guadagni ◽  
Matteo Palmeri ◽  
Matteo Bianchini ◽  
Desirée Gianardi ◽  
Niccolò Furbetta ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Double Layer ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Single Layer ◽  
Right Colectomy ◽  
Layer Versus ◽  
Bleeding Rate ◽  
Common Technique ◽  
Technical Details ◽  
Robotic Right Colectomy ◽  
Mechanical Anastomosis

Abstract Purpose Robotic assistance could increase the rate of ileo-colic intra-corporeal anastomosis (ICA) during robotic right colectomy (RRC). However, although robotic ICA can be accomplished with several different technical variants, it is not clear whether some of these technical details should be preferred. An evaluation of the possible advantage of one respect to another would be useful. Methods We conducted a systematic review of literature on technical details of robotic ileo-colic ICA, from which we performed a meta-analysis of clinical outcomes. The extracted data allowed a comparative analysis regarding the outcome of overall complication (OC), bleeding rate (BR) and leakage rate (LR), between (1) mechanical anastomosis with robotic stapler, versus laparoscopic stapler, versus totally hand-sewn anastomosis and (2) closure of enterocolotomy with manual double layer, versus single layer, versus stapled. Results A total of 30 studies including 2066 patients were selected. Globally, the side-to-side, isoperistaltic anastomosis, realized with laparoscopic staplers, and double-layer closure for enterocolotomy, is the most common technique used. According to the meta-analysis, the use of robotic stapler was significantly associated with a reduction of the BR with respect to mechanical anastomosis with laparoscopic stapler or totally hand-sewn anastomosis. None of the other technical aspects significantly influenced the outcomes. Conclusions ICA fashioning during RRC can be accomplished with several technical variants without evidence of a clear superiority of anyone of these techniques. Although the use of robotic staplers could be associated with some benefits, further studies are necessary to draw conclusions.

Single layer versus double layer suture for anastomosis of the gastrointestinal tract

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alvaro Sanabria ◽  
Gabriel Gomez ◽  
Eduardo Valdivieso ◽  
C Bermudez
Keyword(s):  
Gastrointestinal Tract ◽  
Double Layer ◽  
Single Layer ◽  
Layer Versus

Single layer versus double layer suture for anastomosis of the gastrointestinal tract

2005 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alvaro Sanabria ◽  
Gabriel Gomez ◽  
Eduardo Valdivieso ◽  
C Bermudez
Keyword(s):  
Gastrointestinal Tract ◽  
Double Layer ◽  
Single Layer ◽  
Layer Versus

scholarly journals Advantages of robotic right colectomy over laparoscopic right colectomy beyond the learning curve: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 33-33
Author(s):  
Lelde Lauka ◽  
Francesco Brunetti ◽  
Nassiba Beghdadi ◽  
Margherita Notarnicola ◽  
Daniele Sommacale ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Learning Curve ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Right Colectomy ◽  
Laparoscopic Right Colectomy ◽  
Robotic Right Colectomy

scholarly journals Study of clinical outcome of patients undergoing intestinal anastomoses with single layer extramucosal technique and double layer anastomoses

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arvind Rai ◽  
Sukantth R. J.
Keyword(s):  
Anastomotic Leak ◽  
Double Layer ◽  
Statistical Tests ◽  
Intestinal Anastomosis ◽  
Single Layer ◽  
Layer Versus ◽  
Intestinal Anastomoses ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Group A ◽  
Group B

 Background: Intestinal anastomosis is one of the common surgeries for cases like bowel obstruction, incarcerated hernias, benign and malignant tumours of small and large bowel. The ideal intestinal anastomosis does not leak and allow normal function of the gastrointestinal tract. This study compared single layer versus double layer  intestinal anastomosis in terms of duration, postoperative complications like anastomotic leak.Methods: A total of 100 patients admitted in Hamidia hospital, based on history and clinical examinations and radiological examinations, placed in two groups, group A (single layer anastomosis) and group B (double layer anastomosis) and were operated by a qualified surgical specialist. Data analysis of anastomotic time, anastomotic leak was done and statistical tests of significance were applied. A p value less than 0.05 is considered as significant.Results: In group A (single layer) the time required to perform in 30 (60%) patients is between 16-20 minutes. In double layer, maximum were done in between 26 to 30 minutes, 32 (64%). In our study of 100 patients, there were 6 anastomotic leaks, of which four of them were in group A (single layer) and 2 of them in group B (double layer).Conclusions: In our study, the duration required to perform a single layer intestinal anastomosis is significantly lesser when compared to double layer. There is no significant difference in anastomotic leak between two groups. Less time with no difference in complications, a move towards single layer anastomosis should be preferred.

Laparoscopic versus robotic right colectomy with extra-corporeal or intra-corporeal anastomosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pietro Genova ◽  
Gianni Pantuso ◽  
Calogero Cipolla ◽  
Mario Adelfio Latteri ◽  
Solafah Abdalla ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Right Colectomy ◽  
Robotic Right Colectomy

Photovoltaic Devices with an Active Layer from a Stamping Transfer Technique: Single Layer Versus Double Layer

Langmuir ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 26 (12) ◽  
pp. 9584-9588 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dong Hwan Wang ◽  
Dae-Geun Choi ◽  
Ki-Joong Lee ◽  
O Ok Park ◽  
Jong Hyeok Park
Keyword(s):  
Double Layer ◽  
Active Layer ◽  
Single Layer ◽  
Layer Versus ◽  
Photovoltaic Devices

scholarly journals Single-layer versus double-layer intestinal anastomosis: A comparative study

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 134-143 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tuhin Shah ◽  
RK Agarwal ◽  
RK Gupta ◽  
CS Agrawal ◽  
S Khaniya
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Study ◽  
Double Layer ◽  
Intestinal Anastomosis ◽  
Single Layer ◽  
P Value ◽  
Layer Versus ◽  
Elective Setting ◽  
Prospective Comparative Study ◽  
Layer Groups ◽  
Mean Time

Background: Intestinal anastomosis is essential to maintain the continuity after resection. There has been constant controversy due to various repair options. Adequate apposition can be achieved by either single- or double-layer anastomosis which may affect the post-operative outcome.Objective: To compare the outcome of single-layer versus double-layer anastomosis of small and large intestine.Method: This prospective comparative study was conducted over a period of 16 months, and included 78 patients who underwent intestinal anastomosis (without diverting stoma) after fulfilling inclusion and exclusion criteria. They were randomized into double-layer and single-layer intestinal anastomosis groups by a computer generated series. Double layer anastomosis was constructed using inner continuous Polyglactin 3-0 and outer interrupted Silk 3-0, while single layer anastomosis was done with interrupted PDS 2-0.Result: The mean age was 39.79±17.78 years. A total of 59% were operated in emergency room while 41% in elective setting. Overall mean time for anastomosis was 31.81±6.03 (21-50) minutes. In double- and single-layer intestinal anastomosis mean time was 34.35±5.80 (26-50) and 29.13±5.08 (21-45) minutes respectively, which was statistically significant (p value < 0.05). Single-layer was completed 5 minutes earlier than double layer anastomosis in average. Clinical anastomotic leak was seen in six (7.7%) patients, three in each group. Eight (10.3%) patients had surgical site infection: 3 in double-layer and 5 in single-layer groups. One (1.3%) mortality was seen, from single-layer anastomosis group.Conclusion: Single-layer anastomosis can be constructed in significantly shorter time with similar complication rate when compared to doublelayer anastomosis.Health Renaissance 2015;13(2): 134-143

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document