Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 18, 2026
The C-seal: A Biofragmentable Drain Protecting the Stapled Colorectal Anastomosis from Leakage
Published on: November 4, 2010
[Clinical application of biofragmentable anastomosis ring for intestinal anastomosis]
1Colorectal Department, The First Affliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310003, China.
Objective:
To compare the efficacy of the biofragmentable anastomotic ring (BAR) with conventional hand-sutured and stapling techniques,and to evaluate the safety and applicability of the BAR in intestinal anastomosis.
Methods:
The totol of 498 patients performed intestinal anastomosis from January 2000 to November 2005 were allocated to BAR group (n=186), hand-sutured group (n=177) and linear cutter group (n=135). The operative time, postoperative convalescence and corresponding complication were recorded. Postoperative anastomotic inflammation and anastomotic stenosis were observed during half or one year follow-up of 436 patients.
Result:
The operative time was (102 +/- 16) min in the BAR group, (121 +/- 15) min in the hand-sutured group, and (105 +/- 18 ) min in the linear cutter group. The difference was significant statistically (P <0.05). The operative time in BAR group and linear cutter group was shorter than hand-sutured group. One case of anastomotic leakage was noted in the BAR group, one case in the hand-sutured group, and none in the linear cutter group. They were cured by conservative methods. One case of anastomotic obstruction happened in the BAR group, one case in the hand-sutured group. Two of them were cured by conservative methods. Two cases of anastomotic obstruction happened in the hand-sutured group. However, one of them required reoperation to remove the obstruction. In the BAR, hand-sutured and the linear cutter group, the postoperative first flatus time was (67.2+/- 4.6) h, (70.2 +/- 5.8) h and (69.2 +/- 6.2)h, respectively. No significant differences were observed among three groups(P > 0.05). The rate of postoperative anastomotic inflammation was 3.0 % (5/164) in the BAR group, 47.8 % (76/159) in hand-sutured group and 7.1 % (8/113) in the linear cutter group. The difference was significant statistically (P <0.05). The rate of postoperative anastomotic inflammation in the BAR group and in the linear cutter group was less than that in hand-sutured group.
Conclusion:
BAR is one of rapid,safe and effective methods in intestinal anastomosis. It has less anastomotic inflammatory reaction than hand-sutured technique. It should be considered equal to manual and stapler methods.
