ReviewInternational journal of colorectal disease2017
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.
Review in International journal of colorectal disease, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advanced innovations in reducing anastomotic leak: a review of emerging biomaterial applications in colorectal surgery.International journal of colorectal disease · 2025Review
- The Effect of Albumin/Glutaraldehyde Glue (Bioglue) on Colonic Anastomosis Under Intestinal Obstruction: An Experimental Study in Rats.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- 3D and 4D assembly of functional structures using shape-morphing materials for biological applications.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024Review
- Evaluation of colonic anastomosis healing using hybrid nanosheets containing molybdenum disulfide (MOS2) scaffold of human placental amniotic membrane and polycaprolactone (PCL) in rat animal model.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2023Article
- Side-to-side duodeno-ileal magnetic compression anastomosis: design and feasibility of a novel device in a porcine model.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- The Colorectal Anastomosis: A Timeless Challenge.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2023Review
- Compression automation of circular stapler for preventing compression injury on gastrointestinal anastomosis.The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS · 2022Article
- Design and fabrication of modified bi-layer poly vinyl alcohol adhesive sealant film for preventing gastrointestinal leakage.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Colorectal Anastomotic Techniques.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2022Review
- Poly-ε-caprolactone scaffold for the reinforcement of stapled small intestinal anastomoses: a randomized experimental study.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeBiofragmentable 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.
methodsA 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.
resultsThe 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.
conclusionsThe 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.