Data from the trauma patient population suggests handsewn anastomoses (HS) are superior to stapled (ST). A recent retrospective study in emergency general surgery (EGS) patients had similar findings. The aim of the current study is to evaluate HS and ST anastomoses in EGS patients undergoing urgent/emergent operations.
The study was sponsored by the AAST Multi-Institutional Studies Committee. Patients undergoing urgent/emergent bowel resection for EGS pathology were prospectively enrolled from 7/22/2013-12/31/2015. Patients were grouped by HS / ST anastomoses and variables were collected. The primary outcome was anastomotic failure. Similar to other studies, anastomotic failure was evaluated at the anastomosis level. Multivariable logistic regression was performed controlling for age and risk factors for anastomotic failure.
Fifteen institutions enrolled a total of 595 patients with 649 anastomoses (253 HS & 396 ST). Mean age was 61-years, 51% were male, 7% overall mortality. Age and sex were the same between groups. The overall anastomotic failure rate was 12.5%. The HS group had higher lactate, lower albumin, and were more likely to be on vasopressors. Hospital and ICU days, as well as mortality, were greater in the HS group. Anastomotic failure rates and operative time were equivalent for HS and ST. On multivariate regression, the presence of contamination at initial resection (OR 1.965; 95% CI 1.183-3.264) and the patient being managed with open abdomen (OR 2.529; 95% CI 1.492-4.286) were independently associated with anastomotic failure, while the type of anastomosis was not.
EGS patients requiring bowel resection and anastomosis are at high risk for anastomotic failure. The current study illustrates an apparent bias among acute care surgeons to perform HS techniques in higher risk patients. Despite the individualized application of technique for differing patient populations, the risk of anastomotic failure was equivalent when comparing HS and ST anastomoses.
II STUDY TYPE: Therapeutic.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 42. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 April 2022.
All research outputs
#1,245,558
of 34,526,284 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, The
#203
of 5,310 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,976
of 353,488 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, The
#6
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,526,284 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,310 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 353,488 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
