Comparison of Anastomotic Leakage in Interrupted Versus Continuous Single Layer   Extramucosal Anastomotic Techniques in Jejunum

Mujahid Ali Khoso; Zahid Hussain; Saeed Bin Ayaz; Zulfiqar Ali Shaikh; Farhan Ahmed Majeed; Syed Majid Waseem

doi:10.51253/pafmj.v74i3.7579

Authors

Mujahid Ali Khoso Department of General Surgery, Armed Forces Institute of Urology/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Rawalpindi, Pakistan
Zahid Hussain Department of General Surgery, Combined Military Hospital, Multan/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Pakistan
Saeed Bin Ayaz Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Combined Military Hospital, Jhelum/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Pakistan
Zulfiqar Ali Shaikh Department of Anesthesia, Combined Military Hospital, Multan/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Pakistan
Farhan Ahmed Majeed Department of General Surgery, Combined Military Hospital, Multan/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Pakistan
Syed Majid Waseem Department of Anesthesia, Combined Military Hospital, Multan/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51253/pafmj.v74i3.7579

Keywords:

Anastomotic leak, intestine, surgical anastomosis, suture techniques

Abstract

Objective: To compare the frequency of anastomotic leakage in interrupted versus continuous, single layer extramucosal anastomotic techniques in jejunum.

Study Design: Quasi-experimental study.

Place and Duration of Study: Combined Military Hospital, Multan Pakistan, from Feb 2020 to Feb 2021.

Methodology: Patients aged 15-60 years, from the indoor surgical department of the hospital who required jejunal anastomosis were selected. Patients were categorized as Group-A (interrupted single layer extra mucosal anastomosis) or Group-B (continuous single layer extra mucosal anastomosis).

Results: The mean age was 43±9.5 years in Group-A and 41.6±10.1 years in Group-B. Eighteen patients (56.3%) in Group-A and 21(65.6%) in Group-B were male while 14 patients (43.67%) in Group-A and 11(34.4%) in Group-B were females. Frequency of anastomotic leakage was recorded as one patient (3.13%) in Group-A and 3(9.38%) in Group-B while rest of the patients in both groups had no anastomotic leakage (p=0.302). Chi square test was applied, which showed statistically insignificant difference between the two groups (p=0.32)

Conclusion: Comparatively higher frequency of anastomotic leakage was recorded in patients treated with continuous as compared to interrupted suturing but the results were statistically insignificant.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Chen C. The art of bowel anastomosis. Scandinavian J Surg 2012; 101(4): 238-240. https://doi.org/10.1177/145749691210100403

Hautefeuille P. Réflexions sur les sutures digestives. A propos de 570 sutures accomplies depuis 5 ans au surjet monoplan de monobrin [Gastrointestinal suturing. Apropos of 570 sutures performed over a 5-year period using a single layer continuous technic]. Chirurgie 1976; 102(2): 153-165.

Kar S, Mohapatra V, Singh S, Rath PK, Behera TR. Single layered versus double layered intestinal anastomosis: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Clin Diagn Res 2017; 11(6): PC01-PC04.

https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2017/24817.9983

Khattak B, Iftikhar M, Khattak IA. Single Layer Extra-Mucosal Interrupted Anastomoses; Revalidated. J Gandhara Med Dental Sci 2015; 2(1): 22-26.

Abdella MR, Fathi M, El-Sayed A, Shehata A. Is single-layer better than double-layer interrupted intestinal anastomosis? A comparative study in pediatric patients. Egypt J Surg 2018; 37(1): 9-15. https://doi.org/10.4103/ejs.ejs_78_17

Kumar A, Kumar V. Single layer versus double layer intestinal anastomoses: a comparative study. Int Surg J 2020; 7(9): 2991-2998. https://doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20203782

Aslam V, Bilal A. Gastroesophageal anastomosis: single-layer versus double-layer technique—an experience on 50 cases. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad 2008; 20(3): 6-9.

Mahboob A, Qureshi WH, Yousaf A, Iqbal MN. Comparison of single layer continuous extra mucosal technique versus interrupted technique for sutures of anastomoses in gut: A randomized control trial. Isra Med J 2019; 11(3): 150-153.

Hussain S, Aslam V, Rahman S, Khan SM. Single layer continuous versus single layer interrupted extra mucosal technique in small intestinal anastomosis. Pak J Med Health Sci 2015; 9: 1312-1315.

Memon JM, Solangi RA, Baloch I, Memon MR, Bozdar AG, Naqvi SQH, et al. Hand sewn single layer serosubmucosal interrupted vs. continuous intestinal anastomosis. Ann King Edward Med Uni 2015; 21(1): 27-32.

https://doi.org/10.21649/akemu.v21i1.691

Burch JM, Franciose RJ, Moore EE, Biffl WL, Offner PJ. Single-layer continuous versus two-layer interrupted intestinal anastomosis: a prospective randomized trial. Ann Surg 2000; 231(6): 832-837.

Mirza SM, Khalid K, Hanif F. Single layer interrupted serosubmucosal intestinal anastomosis-An equally safe alternative. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 2002; 12: 583-587.

Ramalingam M, Murugesan A, Senthil K, Pai MG. A comparison of continuous and interrupted suturing in laparoscopic pyeloplasty. JSLS 2014; 18(2): 294-300.

https://doi.org/10.4293/108680813X13753907291873

Fang AH, Chao W, Ecker M. Review of Colonic Anastomotic Leakage and Prevention Methods. J Clin Med 2020; 9(12): 4061.

https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9124061

Awad S, El-Rahman AIA, Abbas A, Althobaiti W, Alfaran S, Alghamdi S, et al. The assessment of perioperative risk factors of anastomotic leakage after intestinal surgeries; a prospective study. BMC Surg 2021; 21(1): 29.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-020-01044-8

Kingham TP, Pachter HL. Colonic anastomotic leak: risk factors, diagnosis, and treatment. J Am Coll Surg 2009; 208(2): 269-278.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2008.10.015

Kar S, Mohapatra V, Singh S, Rath PK, Behera TR. Single Layered Versus Double Layered Intestinal Anastomosis: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Clin Diagn Res 2017; 11(6): PC01-PC04. https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2017/24817.9983

Clatterbuck B, Moore L. Small Bowel Resection. StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2021.

Patil M, Ratra A. Prospective Study of Extramucosal Single Layer Interrupted Suture vs. Conventional Two Layer Repair of Intestinal Anastomosis. Clin Surg 2020; 5: 2916.

Sai KL, Sugumar C. A Comparative study of single layer extra mucosal versus conventional double layer anastomosis of intestines in elective and emergency laparotomy. Int Surg J 2020; 7(1): 184-188. https://doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20195966

Raj MS, Pani JR, Patra G. A Comparative study between single versus double layered intestinal anastomosis. Ann Rom Soc Cell Biol 2021; 25(4): 14508-14515.