Gastrointestinal tract anastomoses with the biofragmentable anastomosis ring: is it still a valid technique for bowel anastomosis? Analysis of 203 cases and review of the literature

• Published in: International journal of colorectal disease 2017-01, Vol.32 (1), p.107-111
• Main Authors: Bobkiewicz, Adam, Studniarek, Adam, Krokowicz, Lukasz, Szmyt, Krzysztof, Borejsza-Wysocki, Maciej, Szmeja, Jacek, Marciniak, Ryszard, Drews, Michal, Banasiewicz, Tomasz
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Anastomosis, Surgical; Digestive System Surgical Procedures - adverse effects; Digestive System Surgical Procedures - methods; Female; Gastroenterology; Gastrointestinal diseases; Gastrointestinal system; Gastrointestinal Tract - surgery; Health aspects; Hepatology; Humans; Internal Medicine; Male; Medical records; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Metronidazole; Middle Aged; Original; Original Article; Postoperative Complications - etiology; Proctology; Reproducibility of Results; Surgery; Young Adult
• ISSN: 0179-1958; 1432-1262
• DOI: 10.1007/s00384-016-2661-z

Purpose Biofragmentable anastomosis ring (BAR) is an alternative to manual and stapled anastomoses performed within the upper and lower gastrointestinal (GI) tract. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of BAR utility for bowel anastomoses based on our own material. Methods A retrospective analysis was performed to a total of 203 patients who underwent bowel surgery with the use of BAR anastomosis within upper and lower gastrointestinal tract between 2004 and 2014. Data for the analysis was collected based on medical records, treatment protocols, and the results of histological examinations. Results The study group consisted of 86 women and 117 men. The most common underlying pathology was a malignant disease ( n  = 165). Biofragmentable anastomosis ring (BAR) size 31 was the most commonly used ( n  = 87). A total of 169 colocolic or colorectal anastomoses and 28 ileocolic and 8 enteroenteric anastomoses were performed. The mortality rate was 0.5 % ( n  = 1) whereas re-surgery rate within 30 days was 8.4 % ( n  = 17). Twenty-eight patients developed perioperative complications with surgical site infection as the most common one ( n  = 11). Eight patients developed specific complications associated with BAR including an anastomotic leak ( n  = 6) and intestinal obstruction ( n  = 2). The mean time of hospital stay after surgery was 12.7 days. Conclusions The use of BAR for the GI tract anastomoses is simple and rapid method and it is characterized with an acceptable number of perioperative mortality and complication rates. Based on our experience, we recommend the use of BAR anastomosis in different types of intestinal anastomosis in varying clinical scenarios.