Comparative Study of Outcomes of Single Versus Double Layer Gut Anastomosis in Case of Elective Large Gut Surgeries
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51253/pafmj.v76i4.10309Keywords:
Anastomosis, Anastomotic Leak, Colon, Colorectal Cancer, Postoperative ComplicationsAbstract
Objective: To compare the outcomes and complications of the single and double-layer anastomosis for large gut pathologies.
Study Design: Comparative prospective study.
Place and Duration of Study: Department of General Surgery, Combined Military Hospital, Rawalpindi, Pakistan, from Feb to Nov 2022.
Methodology: A total of 83 patients, age over 18 years, were incorporated into the study by convenience sampling. All the patients had been diagnosed with a colonic pathology and planned to undergo an elective, large gut anastomosis. Individuals with a prior history of gastrointestinal surgery, medical comorbidities, or deranged clotting profile were excluded. The mean durations of operation and hospital stay were calculated while the incidence of postoperative complications was also assessed. Time until the return of bowel sounds was also noted.
Results: Thirty-eight patients (45.8%) underwent single layer (Group-A), whereas 45 cases (54.2%) were intervened through double layer (Group-B) anastomosis. Mean age for the two groups was 49.0±13.7 and 50.5±16.0 years respectively. Colon and/or rectum cancer were the most prevalent indication for colonic anastomosis (single layer, n=21, 55.3%; double layer, n=23, 51.1%). Single layer anastomosis required 23.1±3.9 minutes in contrast to 28.7±4.2 minutes for its counterpart. Postoperative anastomotic leak was observed in 7(18.4%) cases with single layer and 10(22.2%) cases with double layer surgery. Bowel sounds were reestablished earlier within the former group (2.5±0.7 days) than the latter (2.2±0.6 days).
Conclusion: Both the single- and double-layer anastomosis of large gut are equally safe and efficient.
Downloads
References
1. Emile SH, Barsom SH, Elfallal AH, Wexner SD. Comprehensive literature review of the outcome, modifications, and alternatives to double-stapled low pelvic colorectal anastomosis. Surgery 2022; 172(2): 512-521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2022.02.019
2. Bashir S, Ahrar N, Khurshid MS, Kangoo A, Nazir Y, Khanday AN, et al. Single-layer vs Double-layer Intestinal Anastomosis: A Prospective Comparative Study. Euroasian J Hepatogastroenterol 2025; 15(1): 18.
https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10018-1464
3. Abdella MR, Fathi M, El-Sayed A, Shehata A. Is single-layer better than double-layer interrupted intestinal anastomosis? A comparative study in pediatric patients. Egypt J Surg 2018; 37(1): 9-15. https://doi.org/10.4103/ejs.ejs_78_17
4. Varela C, Nassr M, Razak A, Kim NK. Double-layered hand-sewn anastomosis: a valuable resource for the colorectal surgeon. Ann Coloproctol 2022; 38(3): 271-275.
https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2021.00990.0141
5. Liu Q, Li X. Evolution and prospect of colorectal anastomosis. Zhonghua wei Chang wai ke za zhi 2018; 21(4): 470-475.
6. Abd El-Aal Sultan A, Kamal Soliman M, Ibrahim El-Anany M. Comparative study between single layer versus double layer anastomotic technique for small intestinal anastomosis in adults. Al-Azhar Med J 2021; 50(4): 2555-2564.
https://doi.org/10.21608/amj.2021.196397
7. Aniruthan D, Pranavi AR, Sreenath GS, Kate V. Efficacy of single layered intestinal anastomosis over double layered intestinal anastomosis-an open labelled, randomized controlled trial. Int J Surg 2020; 78: 173-178.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.04.066
8. Sai KL, Sugumar C. A comparative study of single layer extra mucosal versus conventional double layer anastomosis of intestines in elective and emergency laparotomy. Int Sur J 2020; 7(1): 184-188.
https://doi.org/1018203/2349-2902isj20195966
9. Kumar A, Kumar V. Single layer versus double layer intestinal anastomoses: a comparative study. Int Surg J 2020; 27: 2991-2998. https://doi.org/1018203/2349-2902isj20203782
10. Élthes E, Sala D, Neagoe RM, Sárdi K, Székely J. Safety of anastomotic techniques and consequences of anastomotic leakage in patients with colorectal cancer: a single surgeon experience. Med Pharm Rep 2020; 93(4): 384-389.
https://doi.org/10.15386/mpr-1648
11. Shrestha B, Dunn L. The declaration of helsinki on medical research involving human subjects: A review of seventh revision. J Nepal Health Res Counc 2019; 17(4): 548-552.
https://doi.org/10.33314/jnhrc.v17i4.1042
12. Kang J, Kim H, Park H, Lee B, Lee KY. Risk factors and economic burden of postoperative anastomotic leakage related events in patients who underwent surgeries for colorectal cancer. PLOS One 2022; 17(5): e0267950.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267950
13. Dhamnaskar SS, Baid A, Gobbur N, Patil P. An observational comparative study of single layer continuous extramucosal anastomosis versus conventional double layer intestinal anastomosis. Int Surg J 2020; 7(12): 4101-4106.
https://doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20205363
14. Nemma SK, Singh S, Rana AS, Kapoor R, Bansal P. Small intestine anastomosis by full thickness, single layer and interrupted suture technique: results of a comparative study. Int Surg J 2019; 6(3): 675-678.
https://doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20190813
15. Rai A, Sukantth R. Study of clinical outcome of patients undergoing intestinal anastomoses with single layer extramucosal technique and double layer anastomoses. Int Surg J2021; 8(9): 2572-2576.
https://doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20213181
16. Owaid LS, Al-Shahwani IW, Kamal ZB, Hindosh LN, Abdulrahman AF, Mihson HS. Single layer extra-mucosal versus double layer intestinal anastomosis for colostomy closure: a prospective comparative study. Al-Kindy Coll Med J 2021; 17(2): 95-99. https://doi.org/10.47723/kcmj.v17i2.274
17. Dasgupta R, Gupta SP, Hansdah SC. A comparative study of single-layered extramucosal versus traditional double-layered intestinal anastomosis. Int J Acad Med Pharm 2026; 8(2): 728-731. https://doi.org/10.47009/jamp.2026.8.2.136
18. Adhikari B. Single Layer versus Double Layer Technique for Intestinal Anastomosis: A Comparative Study. J Nepalgunj Med Coll 2021; 19(2): 7-10.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Fahd Rashid, Usman Ghani, Hasnain Razzaque, Muhammad Riaz Shahid, Syed Hassan Tariq, Saqib Ali Awais
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
