Interrupted versus continuous suture technique for biliary-enteric anastomosis: randomized clinical trial.
Journal
BJS open
ISSN: 2474-9842
Titre abrégé: BJS Open
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101722685
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 01 2023
06 01 2023
Historique:
received:
05
07
2022
revised:
27
10
2022
accepted:
05
11
2022
entrez:
1
2
2023
pubmed:
2
2
2023
medline:
4
2
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Biliary-enteric anastomosis (BEA) can be performed using continuous or interrupted suture techniques, but high-quality evidence regarding superiority of either technique is lacking. The aim of this study was to compare the suture techniques for patients undergoing BEA by evaluating the suture time as well as short- and long-term biliary complications. In this single-centre randomized clinical trial, patients scheduled for elective open procedure with a BEA between 21 January 2016 and 20 September 2017 were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to have the BEA performed with continuous suture (CSG) or interrupted suture technique (ISG). The primary outcome was the time required to complete the anastomosis. Secondary outcomes were BEA-associated postoperative complications with and without operative revision of the BEA, including bile leakage, cholestasis, and cholangitis, as well as morbidity and mortality up to day 30 after the intervention and survival. Altogether, 82 patients were randomized of which 80 patients received the allocated intervention (39 in ISG and 41 in CSG). Suture time was longer in the ISG compared with the CSG (median (interquartile range), 22.4 (15.0-28.0) min versus 12.0 (10.0-17.0) min, OR 1.26, 95 per cent c.i. 1.13 to 1.40; unit of increase of 1 min; P < 0.001). Short-term and long-term biliary complications were similar between groups. The incidence of bile leakage (6 (14.6 per cent) versus 4 (10.3 per cent), P = 0.738) was comparable between groups. No anastomotic stenosis occurred in either group. Continuous suture of BEA is equally safe, but faster compared with interrupted suture. NCT02658643 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Biliary-enteric anastomosis (BEA) can be performed using continuous or interrupted suture techniques, but high-quality evidence regarding superiority of either technique is lacking. The aim of this study was to compare the suture techniques for patients undergoing BEA by evaluating the suture time as well as short- and long-term biliary complications.
METHODS
In this single-centre randomized clinical trial, patients scheduled for elective open procedure with a BEA between 21 January 2016 and 20 September 2017 were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to have the BEA performed with continuous suture (CSG) or interrupted suture technique (ISG). The primary outcome was the time required to complete the anastomosis. Secondary outcomes were BEA-associated postoperative complications with and without operative revision of the BEA, including bile leakage, cholestasis, and cholangitis, as well as morbidity and mortality up to day 30 after the intervention and survival.
RESULTS
Altogether, 82 patients were randomized of which 80 patients received the allocated intervention (39 in ISG and 41 in CSG). Suture time was longer in the ISG compared with the CSG (median (interquartile range), 22.4 (15.0-28.0) min versus 12.0 (10.0-17.0) min, OR 1.26, 95 per cent c.i. 1.13 to 1.40; unit of increase of 1 min; P < 0.001). Short-term and long-term biliary complications were similar between groups. The incidence of bile leakage (6 (14.6 per cent) versus 4 (10.3 per cent), P = 0.738) was comparable between groups. No anastomotic stenosis occurred in either group.
CONCLUSION
Continuous suture of BEA is equally safe, but faster compared with interrupted suture.
REGISTRATION NUMBER
NCT02658643 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).
Identifiants
pubmed: 36723996
pii: 7021143
doi: 10.1093/bjsopen/zrac163
pmc: PMC9891343
pii:
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT02658643']
Types de publication
Randomized Controlled Trial
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Society Ltd.
Références
Surgery. 2011 May;149(5):680-8
pubmed: 21316725
Indian J Surg. 2014 Jun;76(3):199-203
pubmed: 25177116
Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2018 Dec;403(8):959-966
pubmed: 30474735
Transpl Int. 2011 Apr;24(4):379-92
pubmed: 21143651
Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2017 Mar;99(3):210-215
pubmed: 27659373
World J Surg. 2014 Nov;38(11):2946-51
pubmed: 25011578
HPB (Oxford). 2016 Apr;18(4):367-74
pubmed: 27037207
Ann Surg. 2006 Apr;243(4):559-66
pubmed: 16552210
Transplantation. 2009 Nov 15;88(9):1123-30
pubmed: 19898209
Liver Transpl. 2007 Feb;13(2):234-8
pubmed: 17256781
BMC Surg. 2011 Aug 25;11:19
pubmed: 21864413
J Gastrointest Surg. 2005 Nov;9(8):1163-71; discussion 1171-3
pubmed: 16269388
J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2012 May;19(3):203-9
pubmed: 22081253
BMJ. 2010 Mar 23;340:c332
pubmed: 20332509
J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2006;13(6):502-10
pubmed: 17139423
Am J Surg. 2006 Sep;192(3):276-80
pubmed: 16920417
Pancreatology. 2020 Jun;20(4):736-745
pubmed: 32386969
Am J Transplant. 2006 Feb;6(2):379-85
pubmed: 16426324
Ann Surg. 2006 May;243(5):571-6; discussion 576-8
pubmed: 16632990
Br J Surg. 1979 Jun;66(6):379-84
pubmed: 466017
J Gastrointest Surg. 2007 Dec;11(12):1704-11
pubmed: 17929105
J Gastrointest Surg. 2007 May;11(5):555-61
pubmed: 17394045
BMC Surg. 2018 Oct 11;18(1):84
pubmed: 30309351