Log on / register
Feedback | Support | My details
Open AccessHighly AccessResearch article

Single- versus two- layer intestinal anastomosis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Satoru Shikata* 1,2 email, Hisakazu Yamagishi* 1 email, Yoshinori Taji* 2 email, Toshihiko Shimada* 3 email and Yoshinori Noguchi3 email

1Department of Digestive Surgery, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan

2Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan

3Department of Medicine, Fujita Health University School of Medicine, Aichi, Japan

author email corresponding author email* Contributed equally

BMC Surgery 2006, 6:2doi:10.1186/1471-2482-6-2

Published: 27 January 2006

Abstract

Background

To compare single- with two- layer intestinal anastomosis after intestinal resection: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Methods

Randomized controlled trials comparing single- with two-layer intestinal anastomosis were identified using a systematic search of Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library Databases covering articles published from 1966 to 2004. Outcome of primary interest was postoperative leak. A risk ratio for trial outcomes and weighted pooled estimates for data were calculated. A fixed-effect model weighted using Mantel-Haenszel methods and a random-effect model using DerSimonian-Laird methods were employed.

Results

Six trials were analyzed, comprising 670 participants (single-layer group, n = 299; two-layer group, n = 371). Data on leaks were available from all included studies. Combined risk ratio using DerSimonian-Laird methods was 0.91 (95% CI = 0.49 to 1.69), and indicated no significant difference. Inter-study heterogeneity was significant (χ2 = 10.5, d.f. = 5, p = 0.06).

Conclusion

No evidence was found that two-layer intestinal anastomosis leads to fewer post-operative leaks than single layer. Considering duration of the anastomosis procedure and medical expenses, single-layer intestinal anastomosis appears to represent the optimal choice for most surgical situations.


© 1999-2009 BioMed Central Ltd unless otherwise stated. Part of Springer Science+Business Media.