The evidence is, however, limited, and further high-quality research is needed. The available evidence, however, does suggest that neither technique is inferior in terms of preventing post-operative complications, but SLIA is less expensive and quicker to perform. Overall, results show a dearth of robust trials, and the included studies displayed variable eligibility criteria and materials used for anastomosis.

A database search of PubMed, Google Scholar, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) ultimately returned nine randomized trials published between 20 comparing single-layer intestinal anastomosis (SLIA) and double-layer intestinal anastomosis (DLIA) that fit the inclusion criteria. We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. This review aims to establish which technique provides the best outcomes by reviewing recent relevant trials and comparing both methods. Previous reviews have failed to recommend either of these methods over the other due to a lack of high-quality evidence. Some studies have suggested that the single-layer technique has several potential benefits compared to its rivals while simultaneously maintaining a comparable efficacy and safety profile. This method can achieve anastomosis in one or two layers. Despite the emergence of newer techniques, the hand-sewn technique remains popular for the reestablishment of intestinal continuity after resection. Several malignant and benign indications may necessitate bowel resection.

Free download SepPDF 3.70