Melo GCJ, Luna TA, Cadenas GCI

Language: Spanish
References: 15
Page: 430-433
PDF size: 196.14 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Intestinal anastomosis is a common abdominal procedure in which outcomes can be influenced by comorbidities and perioperative conditions. Early recognition of factors associated with complications supports clinical decision-making and improves results. Objective: to evaluate the factors associated with intestinal anastomosis complications in patients at Hospital Angeles Mocel between 2019 and 2023. Material and methods: an observational retrospective comparative study was conducted using medical records of 67 patients who underwent intestinal anastomosis. Demographic, clinical, and surgical factors were analyzed using appropriate statistical methods. Results: of the 67 patients, 34 received mechanical and 32 manual anastomosis. The most frequent complications were anastomotic leakage, surgical site infections, wound dehiscence, and stenosis. Specifically, anastomotic leakage occurred in 20.6% of patients with mechanical anastomosis and 6.25% with manual anastomosis. Surgical site infections occurred in 20.6% of patients with mechanical anastomosis and 25% with manual anastomosis. Wound dehiscence was significantly more frequent in mechanical anastomosis (26.5%) compared to manual (12.5%). Stenosis occurred in 17.6% of patients with mechanical anastomosis and 6.25% with manual anastomosis. Comorbidities, especially systemic arterial hypertension (HAS) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2) were associated with a higher incidence of complications, especially wound dehiscence. Conclusion: the study highlights the importance of early identification of risk factors, such as comorbidities, to minimize complications and improve surgical outcomes.

REFERENCES

1. Nunez T. Tratado de terapéutica general y aplicada; comprendiendo el adelanto real de los últimos diez años en medicina y cirugía. United States Congress Senate, Rarebooksclub.com; 2013.

2. Sabiston DC, Townsend CM, Beauchamp RD, Evers BM. Tratado de cirugía: fundamentos biológicos de la práctica quirúrgica moderna. 20th ed. Elsevier España, S.L.U.; 2018.

3. Valverde A. Anastomosis digestivas: principios y técnica (cirugía abierta y laparoscópica). EMC Técnicas Quirúrgicas - Aparato Digestivo. 2015; 31 (3): 1-20.

4. Brunicardi FC, Andersen DK, Billiar TR, Dunn DL, Hunter JG, Matthews JB editors. Schwartz's principles of surgery. 11th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2019.

5. Molina-Meneses SP, Flores-Hernández FJ, Rivera-Caballero P, Torres-Molina MN, Sánchez-Hernández PL, Romero-Rojas MA, et al. Cirugía gastrointestinal y endoscopia. Grupo de Gastrohepatología. Clínica Las Américas.

6. Campos CSF, Ureña AJA, Fuentes OC, Barbosa CFJ, Barrera LFJ, Jiménez LVB, González OA. Dehiscencia de anastomosis gastrointestinal. Qué hacer y qué no hacer. Cirujano General. 2019; 41 (4): 243-255.

7. Erb L, Hyman NH, Osler T. Abnormal vital signs are common after bowel resection and do not predict anastomotic leak. J Am Coll Surg. 2014; 218 (6): 1195-1199.

8. Hyman NH. Managing anastomotic leaks from intestinal anastomoses. Surgeon. 2009; 7 (1): 31-35.

9. Slieker JC, Daams F, Mulder IM, Jeekel J, Lange JF. Systematic review of the technique of colorectal anastomosis. JAMA Surg. 2013; 148 (2): 190-201.

10. Toure AO. Bowel anastomoses: manual or mechanical. In: Zaghal A, Rifai AE, editors. Abdominal Surgery. United States: IntechOpen; 2020.

11. Oprescu C, Beuran M, Nicolau AE, Negoi I, Venter MD, Morteanu S et al. Anastomotic dehiscence (AD) in colorectal cancer surgery: mechanical anastomosis versus manual anastomosis. J Med Life. 2012; 5 (4): 444-451.

12. Paun BC, et al. Ann Surg. 2010; 251 (5): 807-818. doi:10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181dae4ed.

13. Sørensen LT. Ann Surg. 2012; 255 (6): 1069-1079. doi:10.1097/SLA.0b013e31824f632d.

14. Midura EF, et al. Dis Colon Rectum. 2015; 58 (3): 333-338. doi:10.1097/DCR.0000000000000249.

15. Montedori A, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010; (9): CD004320. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004320.pub3.