摘要
Background The biofragmentable anastomosis ring （BAR） is a simple alternative device to create intestinal anastomosis. Our study was designed to evaluate the clinical value of BAR in intestinal anastomosis. Methods A total of 167 patients performed intestinal anastomosis from January 2002 to February 2006 were randomized to BAR group （n=82） and manual suture group （n=-85） as control. They were equally allocated to the two groups regarding sex, age, site of anastomosis, emergent or elective surgery and contaminant diseases. The results of postoperative complications and recovery were recorded in each group. Results Eighty-seven intraperitoneal BAR anastomoses were completed in 82 patients. Two and one postoperative deaths were recorded in BAR and suture group, respectively, no deaths were directly related to anastomotic technique. In suture group, anastomotic leakage and early bleeding both occurred in two patients respectively, no anastomotic bleeding occurred in BAR group, one patient in BAR group developed enterocutaneous fistulae. Perioperative bleeding, operation time and length of hospitalization were similar in two groups （P 〉0.05）. Time for return of bowel function was significantly shortened in BAR group than that in suture group （P 〈0.05）. Conclusion The BAR appears to be a standard, easy, safe and effective alternative either in elective or emergent intraperitoneal intestinal anastomotic surgery.
Background The biofragmentable anastomosis ring （BAR） is a simple alternative device to create intestinal anastomosis. Our study was designed to evaluate the clinical value of BAR in intestinal anastomosis. Methods A total of 167 patients performed intestinal anastomosis from January 2002 to February 2006 were randomized to BAR group （n=82） and manual suture group （n=-85） as control. They were equally allocated to the two groups regarding sex, age, site of anastomosis, emergent or elective surgery and contaminant diseases. The results of postoperative complications and recovery were recorded in each group. Results Eighty-seven intraperitoneal BAR anastomoses were completed in 82 patients. Two and one postoperative deaths were recorded in BAR and suture group, respectively, no deaths were directly related to anastomotic technique. In suture group, anastomotic leakage and early bleeding both occurred in two patients respectively, no anastomotic bleeding occurred in BAR group, one patient in BAR group developed enterocutaneous fistulae. Perioperative bleeding, operation time and length of hospitalization were similar in two groups （P 〉0.05）. Time for return of bowel function was significantly shortened in BAR group than that in suture group （P 〈0.05）. Conclusion The BAR appears to be a standard, easy, safe and effective alternative either in elective or emergent intraperitoneal intestinal anastomotic surgery.
