The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Stapled versus handsewn methods for ileocolic anastomoses
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ileocolic anastomoses are commonly performed for right-sided colon cancer and Crohn's disease. The anastomosis may be constructed using a linear cutter stapler or by suturing. Individual trials comparing stapled versus handsewn ileocolic anastomoses have found little difference in the complication rate but they have lacked adequate power to detect potential small difference. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2007. OBJECTIVES: To compare outcomes of ileocolic anastomoses performed using stapling and handsewn techniques. The hypothesis tested was that the stapling technique is associated with fewer complications. SEARCH STRATEGY: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Colorectal Cancer Group specialised register SR-COLOCA, Cochrane Library were searched for randomised controlled trials comparing use of a linear cuter stapler with any type of suturing technique for ileocolic anastomoses in adults from 1970 to 2005 and were updated in December 2010. Abstracts presented to the following society meetings between 1970 and 2010 were handsearched: American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons, the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, European Association of Coloproctology. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing use of linear cutter stapler (isoperistaltic side to side or functional end to end) with any type of suturing technique in adults. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Eligible studies were selected and their methodological quality assessed. Relevant results were extracted and missing data sought from the authors. RevMan 5 was used to perform meta-analysis when there were sufficient data. Sub-group analyses for cancer inflammatory bowel disease as indication for ileocolic anastomoses were performed. MAIN RESULTS: After obtaining individual data from authors for studies that include other anastomoses, seven trials (including one unpublished) with 1125 ileocolic participants (441 stapled, 684 handsewn) were included. The five largest trials had adequate allocation concealment.Stapled anastomosis was associated with significantly fewer anastomotic leaks compared with handsewn (S=11/441, HS=42/684, OR 0.48 [0.24, 0.95] p=0.03). One study performed routine radiology to detect asymptomatic leaks. For the sub-group of 825 cancer patients in four studies, stapled anastomosis led to significantly fewer anastomotic leaks (S=4/300, HS=35/525, OR 0.28 [0.10, 0.75] p=0.01). In subgroup analysis of non-cancer patients (3 studies, 264 patients) there were no differences for any reported outcomes. All other outcomes: stricture, anastomotic haemorrhage, anastomotic time, re-operation, mortality, intra-abdominal abscess, wound infection, length of stay, showed no significant difference. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Stapled functional end to end ileocolic anastomosis is associated with fewer leaks than handsewn anastomosis.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?
Jadad, A. R., Moore, R. A., Carroll, D., Jenkinson, C., Reynolds, D. J. M., Gavaghan, D. J., & McQuay, H. J. (1996) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-4 · Cited by 17,582
Alves, A., Panis, Y., Trancart, D., Regimbeau, J., Pocard, M., & Valleur, P. (2002) · World Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1007/s00268-001-0256-4 · Cited by 505
Walker, K. G., Bell, S. W., Rickard, M. J. F. X., Mehanna, D., Dent, O. F., Chapuis, P. H., & Bokey, E. L. (2004) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/01.sla.0000133186.81222.08 · Cited by 451
Stapled versus handsewn methods for colorectal anastomosis surgery
Neutzling, C. B., Lustosa, S. A., Proenca, I. M., da Silva, E. M., & Matos, D. (2012) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd003144.pub2 · Cited by 439
ANASTOMOTIC LEAKAGE AFTER LOWER GASTROINTESTINAL ANASTOMOSIS: MEN ARE AT A HIGHER RISK
Lipska, M. A., Bissett, I. P., Parry, B. R., & Merrie, A. E. H. (2006) · ANZ Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1111/j.1445-2197.2006.03780.x · Cited by 327
Self-citationSimillis, C., Purkayastha, S., Yamamoto, T., Strong, S. A., Darzi, A. W., & Tekkis, P. P. (2007) · Diseases of the Colon & Rectum · doi:10.1007/s10350-007-9011-8 · Cited by 210
Handsewn vs. stapled anastomoses in colon and rectal surgery: A meta-analysis
MacRae, H. M., & McLeod, R. S. (1998) · Diseases of the Colon & Rectum · doi:10.1007/bf02238246 · Cited by 207
Techniques for colorectal anastomosis
Ho, Y. (2010) · World Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.3748/wjg.v16.i13.1610 · Cited by 140
Stapled versus handsewn methods for colorectal anastomosis surgery
Matos, D., Atallah, Á. N., Castro, A. A., & Lustosa, S. A. S. (2001) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd003144 · Cited by 138
The Stapled Gastrointestinal Tract Anastomosis
Chassin, J. L., Rifkind, K., Sussman, B., et al. (1978) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/00000658-197811000-00019 · Cited by 129
Metadata
- Authors
- Choy, P. Y. G., Bissett, I. P., Docherty, J. G., Parry, B. R., Merrie, A., & Fitzgerald, A.
- Venue
- Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-09-07
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- CD004320-CD004320
- ISSN
- 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
- 1465-1858
- OpenAlex
- W2165973613
- Cited by
- 346
- References
- 16
- FWCI
- 8.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Stapled versus handsewn methods for ileocolic anastomoses. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/14651858.cd004320.pub3
- The paper
- Choy, P. Y. G., Bissett, I. P., Docherty, J. G., Parry, B. R., Merrie, A., & Fitzgerald, A. (2011). Stapled versus handsewn methods for ileocolic anastomoses. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd004320.pub3
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.