Intestinal anastomosis by use of the biofragmentable anastomotic ring: is it safe and efficacious in emergency operations as well?

PURPOSE: Although sutureless anastomosis by use of the biofragmentable anastomotic ring is now accepted as an alternative to conventional manual sutured or stapled methods in elective enterocolic surgery, its applicability to emergency enterocolic surgery has not yet been established. The aim of this prospective study was to determine whether the biofragmentable anastomotic ring anastomosis in emergency enterocolic surgery could be performed as safely as in elective surgery or as emergency handsewn anastomosis.

METHODS: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of sutureless bowel anastomosis by use of the biofragmentable anastomotic ring in emergency enterocolic surgery, a prospective, randomized study was undertaken to compare the biofragmentable anastomotic ring with conventional handsewn anastomotic technique. One hundred nineteen patients who required emergency laparotomy were randomly assigned to two groups: 56 patients (47 percent) underwent 58 biofragmentable anastomotic ring anastomoses, and 63 patients (53 percent) underwent 65 sutured anastomoses. In addition, the safety and efficacy of the biofragmentable anastomotic ring in emergency surgery were compared with those of the biofragmentable anastomotic ring in 86 elective biofragmentable anastomotic ring anastomoses performed in 84 patients during the same period of time.

RESULTS: Specific intraoperative complications related to use of biofragmentable anastomotic rings occurred in six patients (10.7 percent), and another new biofragmentable anastomotic ring anastomosis was constructed in one patient. These reflected learning-curve errors, but they did not adversely affect the outcome. No statistical differences were observed among the groups with respect to wound complications, postoperative bleeding, intra-abdominal abscess, intestinal obstruction, or postoperative death. As for anastomotic leakage, six patients, two in each group, had complications of anastomotic failure, wherein four colonic fistulas required a diversion and two enteric fistulas closed spontaneously. Although there were no statistically significant differences in incidence of leaks among groups (P = 0.4522), two fistulas in colocolic anastomoses, one in the suture group and the other in the biofragmentable anastomotic ring group, manifested the risk of primary anastomosis in emergency colon resection. Seven patients, three in the elective biofragmentable anastomotic ring group and two each in the emergency suture and biofragmentable anastomotic ring groups, died after the operation, but no deaths were directly attributed to the anastomotic technique used.

CONCLUSION: The data suggest that the biofragmentable anastomotic ring is a safe and reliable alternative to conventional handsewn anastomosis in emergency enterocolic surgery, where the rapidity and security of anastomosis may be critical. Consideration, however, should be given to emergency primary colocolic or colorectal anastomosis, because of a high risk of anastomotic failure, although there are too few cases for a definite conclusion.