Intestinal anastomosis in urology: Comparing techniques

M. Diana, M. Schettini, M. Gallucci

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Three different intestinal anastomosis were compared during reconstructive urologic surgery. We evaluated time, cost and incidence of complications. From November 1993 to February 1997, 45 patients (43 males and 2 females) underwent ileal resection to fashion 30 ileal neobladders, 8 ileal conduits, and 7 augmentation ileocystoplasties. The patients were randomized to 3 groups; in the first, intestinal continuity was performed by B.A.R.; the second was treated by the GIA stapling device; the last underwent manual suture with double layer interrupted stiches (vicryl). The mean follow-up was 18 months. The mean time of canalization was 6.3 days. Complications were: one intestinal subocclusion (group 1); one abdominal wound infection (group 2); one anastomotic leak and one pulmonary embolism (group 3): The mean time of anastomosis was 18, 12 and 39 minutes respectively. The average total cost was 915.000 lt. lire in group 1; 1.280.000 lt. lire in group 2; 632.000 lt. lire in group 3. We believe that mechanical devices (B.A.R. and GIA stapler) are more convenient and can be recommended for reconstructive urological surgery, because of their quickness, effectiveness and final total cost.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)273-276
Number of pages4
JournalActa Urologica Italica
Volume12
Issue number5
Publication statusPublished - 1998

Keywords

  • Biofragmentable Anastomosis Ring
  • Hospital cost
  • Intestinal resection
  • Stapler
  • Urinary diversion

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Intestinal anastomosis in urology: Comparing techniques'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this