ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2016
An Effective New Intestinal Anastomosis Method.
Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Prospective Comparative Study Between Stapler and Handsewn Gastrointestinal Anastomosis.Cureus · 2026Article
- Comparative wound healing of intestinal anastomosis: high-frequency electric welding vs suture in a rabbit model.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2026Article
- Development of a polymeric biomedical device platform with controlled disassembly and in vivo testing in a swine intestinal model.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Tissue fusion technology versus suture and staple in porcine bowel anastomosis: an in vivo study.Brazilian journal of medical and biological research = Revista brasileira de pesquisas medicas e biologica · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND This study aimed to establish an easy, safe, and cost-saving intestinal anastomotic method. MATERIAL AND METHODS Between January 2014 and February 2016, a total of 150 patients with gastric cancer who underwent surgery in the Department of General Surgery of Xuzhou Medical University Affiliated Hospital were divided into 2 groups: the treatment group (80) using new hand-sewn anastomoses, and the control group (70) using stapled anastomoses. Briefly, a new hand-sewn anastomosis of continuous suture without inversion was performed, with the first layer encompassing the entire layer of the intestinal wall. The edge was about 5 mm, and the stitch spacing was about 6 mm. Continuous suturing was performed only in the seromuscular layer of intestinal wall for the second layer, with the same edge and stitch spacing as the first layer. All 70 patients in the control group underwent intestinal stapled anastomoses. Surgical anastomotic time and cost, postoperative anastomotic bleeding, leakage, and stricture were recorded and analyzed. RESULTS The surgical anastomotic time using the new method was relatively short compared with the control group (8±1.6 min vs. 9±2.8 min), and the cost of anastomosis using the new method was significantly lower compared to the control group ($30±6.8 vs. $1000±106.2). The new method exhibited lower anastomotic bleeding (0/80 vs. 2/70) and anastomotic leakage (0/80 vs. 1/70), but similar anastomotic stricture (0/80 vs. 0/70). CONCLUSIONS Our results suggest the new hand-sewn intestinal anastomosis is a safe, easy-to-learn, cost-saving, and time-saving method that also avoids some of the drawbacks of the stapled anastomoses.
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.