Comparative retrospective study on surgical outcomes of hand-sewn anastomosis versus stapling anastomosis for colectomy using a nationwide inpatient database in Japan with propensity score matching

IF 2.9 4区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Shota Ebinuma, Susumu Kunisawa, Kiyohide Fushimi, Nobuki Ichikawa, Tadashi Yoshida, Shigenori Homma, Akinobu Taketomi, Yuichi Imanaka
{"title":"Comparative retrospective study on surgical outcomes of hand-sewn anastomosis versus stapling anastomosis for colectomy using a nationwide inpatient database in Japan with propensity score matching","authors":"Shota Ebinuma,&nbsp;Susumu Kunisawa,&nbsp;Kiyohide Fushimi,&nbsp;Nobuki Ichikawa,&nbsp;Tadashi Yoshida,&nbsp;Shigenori Homma,&nbsp;Akinobu Taketomi,&nbsp;Yuichi Imanaka","doi":"10.1002/ags3.12870","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Intestinal anastomosis is performed by two main methods: hand-sewn anastomosis (HA) and stapling anastomosis (SA). Studies on anastomosis are still being reported and are an ongoing area of interest. The aim of this study was to evaluate the characteristics of each by comparing them with description and statistical analysis using a nationwide inpatient database.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We collected data for colon cancer patients who underwent colectomy between April 2014 and March 2022 using the Diagnosis Procedure Combination (DPC) database. In the descriptive analysis, we described the background of the study population and the number of each method. In the statistical analysis, we used propensity score matching to achieve balanced covariates and showed the results of the comparative study using risk ratios and risk differences.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>A total of 232 155 cases were selected (HA group: 40 764; SA group: 191 391). SA was performed more frequently than HA during the study period, with the proportion of SA increasing over the last few years (~80% in 2015 and 85% in 2021). We obtained 40 760 pairs through propensity score matching. The comparison of postoperative events varied by outcome (reoperation: 517 [1.27%] vs 380 [0.93%]; risk ratio [RR]: 1.36 [95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19 to 1.55], endoscopic intestinal hemostasis: 17 [0.04%] vs 80 [0.20%]; RR: 0.21 [95% CI, 0.13 to 0.36]).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>SA is becoming more common in colectomy. The risk of reoperation could be higher in the HA group, while the risk of postoperative endoscopic intestinal hemostasis could be higher in the SA group.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":8030,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Gastroenterological Surgery","volume":"9 2","pages":"379-388"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ags3.12870","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Gastroenterological Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ags3.12870","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Intestinal anastomosis is performed by two main methods: hand-sewn anastomosis (HA) and stapling anastomosis (SA). Studies on anastomosis are still being reported and are an ongoing area of interest. The aim of this study was to evaluate the characteristics of each by comparing them with description and statistical analysis using a nationwide inpatient database.

Methods

We collected data for colon cancer patients who underwent colectomy between April 2014 and March 2022 using the Diagnosis Procedure Combination (DPC) database. In the descriptive analysis, we described the background of the study population and the number of each method. In the statistical analysis, we used propensity score matching to achieve balanced covariates and showed the results of the comparative study using risk ratios and risk differences.

Results

A total of 232 155 cases were selected (HA group: 40 764; SA group: 191 391). SA was performed more frequently than HA during the study period, with the proportion of SA increasing over the last few years (~80% in 2015 and 85% in 2021). We obtained 40 760 pairs through propensity score matching. The comparison of postoperative events varied by outcome (reoperation: 517 [1.27%] vs 380 [0.93%]; risk ratio [RR]: 1.36 [95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19 to 1.55], endoscopic intestinal hemostasis: 17 [0.04%] vs 80 [0.20%]; RR: 0.21 [95% CI, 0.13 to 0.36]).

Conclusion

SA is becoming more common in colectomy. The risk of reoperation could be higher in the HA group, while the risk of postoperative endoscopic intestinal hemostasis could be higher in the SA group.

Abstract Image

使用倾向评分匹配的日本全国住院患者数据库对手工缝合吻合术与吻合器吻合术在结肠切除术中的手术效果进行回顾性比较研究
背景肠吻合主要有两种方法:手工缝合吻合(HA)和吻合器吻合(SA)。对吻合的研究仍在报道中,是一个正在进行的感兴趣的领域。本研究的目的是通过使用全国住院病人数据库对其进行描述和统计分析,来评估每种疾病的特征。方法使用诊断程序组合(DPC)数据库收集2014年4月至2022年3月期间接受结肠切除术的结肠癌患者的数据。在描述性分析中,我们描述了研究人群的背景和每种方法的数量。在统计分析中,我们使用倾向得分匹配来平衡协变量,并使用风险比和风险差异来显示比较研究的结果。结果共入选232 155例(HA组40 764例;SA组:191 391)。在研究期间,SA比HA更频繁地进行,并且在过去几年中SA的比例有所增加(2015年约为80%,2021年为85%)。通过倾向性评分匹配得到40 760对。术后事件的比较因结果而异(再手术:517例[1.27%]vs 380例[0.93%];风险比[RR]: 1.36[95%可信区间[CI], 1.19 ~ 1.55],内镜下肠止血:17 [0.04%]vs 80 [0.20%];RR: 0.21 [95% CI, 0.13 ~ 0.36])。结论SA在结肠切除术中越来越常见。HA组再次手术的风险更高,SA组术后内镜下肠道止血的风险更高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Annals of Gastroenterological Surgery
Annals of Gastroenterological Surgery GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
11.10%
发文量
98
审稿时长
11 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信