Single Layer Extra-Mucosal Versus Double Layer Intestinal Anastomosis for Colostomy Closure: A Prospective Comparative Study

Background: The main objective was to compare the outcome of single layer interrupted extra-mucosal sutures with that of double layer suturing in the closure of colostomies. Subjects and Methods: Sixty-seven patients with closure colostomy were assigned in a prospective randomized fashion into either single layer extra-mucosal anastomosis (Group A) or double layer anastomosis (Group B). Primary outcome measures included mean time taken for anastomosis, immediate postoperative complications, and mean duration of hospital stay. Secondary outcome measures assessed the postoperative return of bowel function, and the overall mean cost. Chi-square test and student t-test did the statistical analysis.. Results: Thirty-two patients were allocated to group A and 35 patients to group B. The mean time taken for anastomosis was significantly shorter in group A (23.25 ± 1.20 min in group A vs. 36.71 ± 1.93 min in group B; P<0.001). A significant shorter duration of hospital stay was seen in group A (7.00 ± 1.778 days in group A vs. 9.74 ± 1.990 days in group B; P<0.001). The detection of bowel sound was substantially quicker in group A as compared to group B (4.56 ± 0.50 days in group A vs. 6.46±0.50 days in group B; P<0.001). There was no significant discrepancy between the two groups regarding anastomotic leak rates (P= 0.543). The mean cost of double layer intestinal anastomosis method was significantly higher than that of single layer anastomosis (P<0.001). Conclusions: The use of single layer extra-mucosal anastomosis of the intestine has the advantage of taking less time, less morbidity and cost-effective to perform with the same rate of anastomotic leak in the closure of colostomy.

Download Full-text

A comparative study of suturing technique of intestine between extra-mucosal single layer interrupted and continuous all layers: a single center experience

International Surgery Journal ◽

10.18203/2349-2902.isj20213652 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Manoranjan Kar ◽

Somu Singhal ◽

Bismoy Mondal ◽

Arijit Roy

Keyword(s):

Comparative Study ◽

Hospital Stay ◽

Intestinal Anastomosis ◽

Single Layer ◽

P Value ◽

Bowel Anastomosis ◽

Duration Of Hospital Stay ◽

Group A ◽

The Mean ◽

Group B

Background: Gastrointestinal anastomosis has been excited interest in our day to day surgical practice. We have compared efficacy, advantages, disadvantages, and complications following intestinal resection-anastomosis using extra-mucosal interrupted single layer suturing or continuous all layer suturing.Methods: This comparative study included 50 cases (either in emergency or elective undergoing bowel resection and anastomosis), comprising of 2 Groups (25 cases in each Group) between January 2019 to June 2021 at Midnapore Medical College and Hospital. Patients data, operative findings, duration of anastomosis and length of hospital stay, post-operative complications of all patients were followed till discharge.Results: Our comparative study have shown that- the mean duration for intestinal anastomosis in Group A (extra-mucosal interrupted single layer) and Group B (continuous all layers) were 21.43 minutes and 14.35 respectively. Considering duration of the anastomosis continuous all layers intestinal anastomosis appears to represent in shorter duration, anastomotic leak was noted in 3 patients (6%). Anastomotic leak was observed in 1 patient extra-mucosal interrupted single layer bowel anastomosis whereas two patients in the Group of continuous all layered bowel anastomosis had leak (p value 0.5-not significant) and the mean duration of hospital stay in the Group A and Group B were 7.32 days and 7.92 days respectively. (p value -insignificant).Conclusions: Duration required to perform a continuous all layer bowl anastomosis is lesser when compared to an extra-mucosal interrupted single layer intestinal anastomosis. There is no significant difference in complications, final outcome and duration of hospital stay between two Groups.

Download Full-text

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

International Surgery Journal ◽

10.18203/2349-2902.isj20213181 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

Small intestine anastomosis by full thickness, single layer and interrupted suture technique: results of a comparative study

International Surgery Journal ◽

10.18203/2349-2902.isj20190813 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 6 (3) ◽

pp. 675

Author(s):

Shobhit K. Nemma ◽

Sarbjeet Singh ◽

Amritpal Singh Rana ◽

Rohit Kapoor ◽

Puneet Bansal

Keyword(s):

Small Intestine ◽

Double Layer ◽

Single Layer ◽

Stoma Closure ◽

Full Thickness ◽

Layer Technique ◽

Group A ◽

The Mean ◽

The Difference ◽

Group B

Background: Since the dawn of surgery intestinal anastomosis has remained a controversial topic in respect to suture material, anastomotic technique, distance between stitches and borders. Technique of anastomosis is an important determinant in process of anastomosis healing. Despite a large amount of work done on anastomosis techniques, a clear superiority of one technique over another has not been established.Methods: Patients of ileostomy reporting to surgery department for stoma closure were used for study. 80 patients of ileostomy reporting for stoma closure were used as material for the study and randomized in two groups. In single layer group, using 3-0 silk suture, we performed small intestine anastomosis applying single layer of interrupted sutures taking full thickness bite. In double layer group, anastomosis was performed anastomosis by applying first layer of full thickness sutures and second layer of seromuscular sutures. The results were compared in terms of operative time, post operative complications, mortality, hospital stay and cost of the suture material.Results: The mean age of the patients was 33.55 yr in group A (single layer) and 35.85 yr in group B (double layer). Total 7 patients developed anastomotic leak. 5 (12.5%) patients were with double layer anastomosis and 2 (5%) patients were in single layer group. The difference in anastomosis leak in two groups was statistically insignificant (p = 0.232). The mean duration of whole procedure in group A (single layer) was 52.5min and 71.5min in group B (double layer). The difference in mean duration of the procedure was found to statistically significant (P = 0.00).Conclusions: We concluded the single layer technique to be a safe, efficient and more cost effective as compared to double layer technique.

Download Full-text

Single Layer Extra-Mucosal Interrupted Anastomoses; Revalidated

Journal of Gandhara Medical and Dental Science ◽

10.37762/jgmds.2-1.59 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 2 (1) ◽

pp. 22-26

Author(s):

Bilal Khattak ◽

Faiz -Ur- Rahman ◽

Irfan -Ul-Islam Nasir ◽

Muhammad Iftikhar ◽

Imtiaz Ahmad Khattak ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Comparative Study ◽

Double Layer ◽

Intestinal Anastomosis ◽

Single Layer ◽

P Value ◽

Burst Abdomen ◽

Group A ◽

Prospective Comparative Study ◽

Anastomosis Leakage ◽

Group B

Objective:To evaluate the safety regarding anastomotic failure of single layer interrupted extra mucosal intestinal anastomosis in comparison with double layer intestinal anastomosisMethodology:This prospective comparative study was conducted in surgical A unit of Lady reading Hospital Peshawar from 1st June 2007 to 1st February 2008 (8 months).Patients were divided into two groups, each comprising 60 patients. First 60 consecutive patients were included in Group A, for single layer extra mucosal anastomosis while Group B included last 60 consecutive patients for double layer inverting anastomosis (continuous inner and interrupted outer Lambert sutures). All the cases were admitted through OPD and emergency. The safety of two techniques of anastomosis was analyzed by comparing the outcome in terms of complications.Results:In this study, anastomosis leakage occurred only in 4 (3.33%) patients, one (1.67%) in group A and three (5%) in group B with a P-Value 0.138. Mean age of patient in group A was 36.15 years (+/- 6.0 years) and in group B was 33.25 years (+/- 5.5 years).Conclusion:Single layer extra-mucosal anastomosis has least anastomotic leakage and other complication like wound infection, septicemia, and collection and burst abdomen than in patients with double layer investing anastomosis.

Download Full-text

A COMPARATIVE STUDY BETWEEN SINGLE LAYER VERSUS DOUBLE LAYER INTESTINAL ANASTOMOSIS

10.36106/pijr/5702440 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 64-66

Author(s):

Sudhansu Sarkar ◽

Sourav Das

Keyword(s):

Comparative Study ◽

Double Layer ◽

Intestinal Anastomosis ◽

Single Layer ◽

Layer Versus ◽

Medical College ◽

Number Of Patients ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Group A ◽

Group B

A comparative study between Single Layer versus Double Layer Intestinal Anastomosis,was undertaken at Department of Surgery,Bankura Sammilani Medical College & Hospital,Bankura from April 2019 – September 2020,which included 74 patients, comprising 2 groups: Group A-Single layer and Group B- Double layer with equal number of patients randomly allotted in each group. More number of patients had anastomotic leak in Group B than Group A, though not statistically significant. Difference of Mean Duration of Anastomosis with both groups is statistically significant.Mean Duration of Hospital Stay with both groups is statistically insignificant. Although more number of patients had anastomotic leaks in Group B than Group A,it was statistically insignificant.

Download Full-text

COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SINGLE LAYER CONTINUOUS VERSUS SINGLE LAYER INTERRUPTED EXTRA MUCOSAL TECHNIQUES IN SMALL INTESTINE ANASTOMOSIS

10.36106/ijsr/0332507 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 40-41

Author(s):

Md Noman ◽

Shri Krishna Ranjan

Keyword(s):

Small Intestine ◽

Postoperative Complications ◽

Comparative Study ◽

Hospital Stay ◽

Intestinal Anastomosis ◽

Single Layer ◽

Anastomosis Group ◽

Group A ◽

Group B ◽

Demographic Features

Background: Intestinal anastomosis is most commonly performed surgical procedure both in emergency and elective settings therefore its leak and disruption is a common cause of post-operative morbidity and mortility. Gut anastomosis heals by the same mechanism as that of wound healing. The submucosa, is the strongest layer of gut wall therefore ideal anastomotic technique is the one which includes apposition and approximation of this layer. Aim:The outcome of comparative study of single layer continuous extra mucosal technique and single layer interrupted extra mucosal technique for the anastomosis of small bowel. Methods:This was a prospective study based on randomization and was carried out in surgery department of ANMMC&H, Gaya from 1 st March 2019 to 29th February 2020. Total Fifty patients were included in study requiring small intestine anastomosis and were divided in two groups based on randomization. Group Aincluded those patients in which the anastomosis performed by single layer continuous extra mucosal technique and Group B patients underwent single layer interrupted extramucosal technique for creation of anastomosis, Group Aincluded 24 patients (n=24) and Group B 26 patients (n=26) . The demographic features, time taken to create anastomosis , postoperative complications , number of deaths if any and hospital stay in days were recorded on a printed proforma and data analysis was done through computer soft ware SPSS 16. Results: Group Aand B were similar as for as the demographic features, postoperative complications and duration of hospital stay are concerned. 4.2% patients of Group A and 7.7% of Group B developed anastomotic dehiscence with non signicant p value. Mean time taken for creation of anastomosis was 10.04 minutes in continuous extra mucosal anastomosis group (Group A ) and 19.2 minutes in interrupted extra mucosal anastomosis [Group B ] (p=0.0001) Overall hospital mortality was 2%. Conclusion: Single layer continuous extra mucosal technique is as safe as interrupted extra mucosal anastomosis technique but can be performed in shorter time and can be a cost effective alternative for construction of bowel anastomosis.

Download Full-text

A comparative study of single layer extra mucosal versus conventional double layer anastomosis of intestines in elective and emergency laparotomy

International Surgery Journal ◽

10.18203/2349-2902.isj20195966 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 7 (1) ◽

pp. 184

Author(s):

K. Lohit Sai ◽

C. Sugumar

Keyword(s):

Comparative Study ◽

Hospital Stay ◽

Anastomotic Leak ◽

Double Layer ◽

Single Layer ◽

Duration Of Hospital Stay ◽

Key Skills ◽

Group A ◽

The Difference ◽

Group B

Background: Gastrointestinal anastomosis has been a part of research since decades and is one of the key skills in surgeon’s armamentarium. This study compared the outcome of single layer anastomosis with double layer anastomosis.Methods: The study was designed as a prospective comparative study and 29 cases were included in the study during December 2016 to September 2017, who consented for being part of the study. Patients were alternatively allotted into the either group. Group A underwent single layer anastomosis and Group B underwent double layer anastomosis. Outcome parameters were analysed in the form of ‘duration required to perform anastomoses, ‘duration of hospital stay’ and ‘dnastomotic leak.Results: Mean duration required to perform anastomosis in Group A is 21.64±1.60 minutes and in Group B is 29.6±2.02 minutes. The difference between the mean duration required for anastomosis between the two groups were statistically significant (p<0.005). Mean duration of hospital stay in Group A was 12.35±1.72 days and Group B was 12±2.44 days (difference was statistically insignificant), 3 (10%) cases in Group A and 2 (6.8 %) cases in Group B developed anastomotic leak and the difference was statistically insignificant.Conclusions: Our study concluded that there is statistically significant difference between the single layer anastomosis and double layer anastomosis in terms of time taken to perform anastomosis, however there is no difference in postoperative anastomotic leak and duration of hospital stay.

Download Full-text

A comparative study between single layer versus double layer closure in ileostomy reversal

Asian Journal of Medical Sciences ◽

10.3126/ajms.v6i2.10080 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 6 (2) ◽

pp. 43-46 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Sushil Mittal ◽

Harnam Singh ◽

Gurpreet Singh ◽

Anand Munghate ◽

Anjna Garg ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Double Layer ◽

Indian Subcontinent ◽

Intestinal Anastomosis ◽

Single Layer ◽

Ileostomy Closure ◽

Layer Versus ◽

Choice Of Procedure ◽

Postoperative Leak ◽

Group A ◽

Group B

Background: Ileal perforation peritonitis is a common surgical emergency in the Indian subcontinent and in tropical countries. Formation of an intestinal stoma is frequently a component of surgical intervention for diseases of the small bowel. The technique for stoma reversal has remained controversial is the use of either one or two layers of sutures for anastomosis.Methods: Sixty patients with ileostomy were taken for study .These patients divided in two groups A and B, 30 each. These patients were taken up for ileostomy closure in single layer (group A) (n-30) &double layer (group B) (n-30). Results: 60 Patients of ileostomy were studied, divided equally in 2 groups, A decreased intra operative time was seen in Group A when compared with Group B with no any significant comparative complication in these groups. Conclusion: Two-layer anastomosis for ileostomy closure offers no definite advantage over single layer anastomosis in terms of postoperative leak and other complications. Single layer ileostomy closure technique is safe, easy to perform and simply to taught. Considering duration of the anastomosis procedure and medical expenses single-layer intestinal anastomosis may prove the choice of procedure for most of the surgeons. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3126/ajms.v6i2.10080Asian Journal of Medical Sciences Vol.6(2) 2015 44-47

Download Full-text

A Double-Blind Randomized Prospective Study Comparing Ondansetron with Droperidol in the Prevention of Emesis following Strabismus Surgery

Anaesthesia and Intensive Care ◽

10.1177/0310057x9502300404 ◽

1995 ◽

Vol 23 (4) ◽

pp. 438-443 ◽

Cited By ~ 25

Author(s):

A. Davis ◽

S. Krige ◽

D. Moyes

Keyword(s):

Recovery Time ◽

Strabismus Surgery ◽

Double Blind Study ◽

Double Blind ◽

Oral Fluids ◽

Group A ◽

The Mean ◽

Group B ◽

To Receive ◽

Mean Time

A prospective double-blind study was conducted to compare the anti-emetic efficacy of ondansetron and droperidol in preventing postoperative emesis following strabismus surgery. A sample size of 213 patients was divided into three equal groups to receive ondansetron 150 μg/kg (Group A), ondansetron 75 μg/kg (Group B), or droperidol 75 fig/kg (Group C). All patients received a standardized anaesthetic technique. All episodes of emesis, recovery time, and time to tolerating oral fluids were recorded. The incidence of emesis during 24 hours was Groups A and B 19.7%, and Group C 28.2%. The lower incidence of emesis recorded by the ondansetron groups compared with the droperidol group was not statistically significant. Ondansetron at 75 μg/kg was as effective as 150 μg/kg in reducing emesis when compared with droperidol. Mean time to discharge from the recovery room was 75.3 minutes (Group A), 44.4 minutes (Group B), and 41.0 minutes (Group C). The mean time to tolerating oral fluids was 356.5 minutes (Group A), 402.8 minutes (Group B), and 378.1 minutes (Group C). There was no statistical difference in discharge times from recovery or time to tolerating oral fluids in any of the three groups.

Download Full-text

Which Surgical Method is More Effective in the Fifth Metatarsal Base Fracture?

Foot & Ankle Orthopaedics ◽

10.1177/2473011417s000242 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 2 (3) ◽

pp. 2473011417S0002

Author(s):

Jun-Beom Kim ◽

Chi Ahn ◽

Byeong-Seop Park

Keyword(s):

Clinical Results ◽

Plate Group ◽

Group A ◽

The Mean ◽

The Difference ◽

Group B ◽

Clinical And Radiological Results ◽

Mean Time ◽

Screw Group

Category: Trauma Introduction/Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the clinical and radiological results of internal fixation with headless cannulated screw and locking compression distal ulna hook plate for the fracture at the base of fifth metatarsal bone, Zone 1. Methods: From April 2012 to April 2015, thirty cases (29 patients) were evaluated retrospectively. The mean follow up periods was 13 months. There were divided two groups based on use of the screw (group A, n=15) or the plate (group B, n=15).We measured the displacement to diastasis of the fracture on the foot oblique radiographs taken pre- and post-operatively in each group, checked the time to bone union and the difference of the reduction distance in each group. Clinical results were evaluated using American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) midfoot score at 12 months postoperative. Results: In group A, the mean time to union was 54.2±9.3 days, the mean displacement to diastasis improved to 0.3±0.4 mm postoperatively (p<0.001), and the mean reduction distance was 2.9±1.0 mm. In group B, the mean time to union was 41.5±7.0 days, the mean displacement to diastasis improved to 0.06±0.2 mm postoperatively (p<0.001), and the mean reduction distance was 4.1±1.6 mm. AOFAS score was verified 97.7±3.4 in group A and 98.2±3.2 in group B. The time to union was significantly different between groups A and B (p=0.01).There were no complications. Conclusion: We suggest that the plate is more effective method for the shorter union time in surgical treatment of fifth metatarsal base fractures.

Download Full-text