Single-Layer Continuous Versus Double-Layer Continuous Suture in Colonic Anastomoses—a Randomized Multicentre Trial (ANATECH Trial)

Purpose Apart from stapling methods, single- or double-layer continuous hand sutures are established techniques for colonic anastomoses. It is unclear which hand suture technique has superior anastomotic safety. This randomized trial evaluated the incidence of postoperative complications depending o...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of gastrointestinal surgery 2016-02, Vol.20 (2), p.421-430
Hauptverfasser: Herrle, F., Diener, M. K., Freudenberg, S., Willeke, F., Kienle, P., Boenninghoff, R., Weiss, C., Partecke, L. I., Schuld, J., Post, S.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 430
container_issue 2
container_start_page 421
container_title Journal of gastrointestinal surgery
container_volume 20
creator Herrle, F.
Diener, M. K.
Freudenberg, S.
Willeke, F.
Kienle, P.
Boenninghoff, R.
Weiss, C.
Partecke, L. I.
Schuld, J.
Post, S.
description Purpose Apart from stapling methods, single- or double-layer continuous hand sutures are established techniques for colonic anastomoses. It is unclear which hand suture technique has superior anastomotic safety. This randomized trial evaluated the incidence of postoperative complications depending on anastomosis technique. Methods This multicentre randomized trial enrolled adult elective patients between February 2004 and June 2012 in four German university hospitals. Primary endpoint was incidence of clinical anastomotic leakage until 3 months postoperatively. Estimated sample size was 768 randomized patients. Main secondary endpoints were duration of anastomotic suture, postoperative morbidity and stool patterns at 3-month follow-up. Patients and postoperative outcome assessors were blinded to the group assignment. This trial is registered (NCT00996554). Results Due to slow recruitment, the trial was stopped prematurely. Two hundred fifty-two patients (129 to single-layer suture anastomosis (SLA), 123 to double-layer suture anastomosis (DLA)) were randomized and analysed. Nine patients (3.6 %) were lost during follow-up. Exploratory primary endpoint analysis by intention-to-treat principle showed no significant difference for clinical anastomotic leakage between suturing techniques (SLA, 4 of 129 (3.1 %) vs. DLA, 6 of 123 (4.9 %), p  = 0.532). Secondary endpoint analysis showed on average a 6-min shorter suture duration for SLA than DLA (18 min (4–49) vs. 24 min (8–50), p  
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s11605-015-3003-0
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1760906931</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3929301221</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c442t-b56531120fb14acbea45be8c49761c75dce4703b9fca115cc912ab6ec30bba2b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kcFu1DAQhi1ERcvCA3BBkbiUg8uMEzvJcbUUirQtEl0QN8v2eitXid3a8aGcuPAGPCFPglcpCCE4jT3z_f_Y-gl5hnCCAO2rhCiAU0BOa4CawgNyhF1b00Yw8bCcoUfKOP98SB6ndA2ALWD3iBwywRlnII7It0vnrwZL1-rOxmoV_OR8DjlVn2xMpbwOWf9rfJmnHG3lfGkOwTtTLb1KUxhDsunH1--q-qD8Nozui91W53mYnLF-KopNdGqojpcXy83p6my-vnxCDnZqSPbpfV2Qj29ON6szun7_9t1quaamadhENRe8RmSw09goo61quLadafpWoGn51timhVr3O6MQuTE9MqWFNTVorZiuF-R49r2J4TbbNMnRJWOHQXlbfiWxFdCD6Gss6Iu_0OuQoy-vKxTv-g5EWbUgOFMmhpSi3cmb6EYV7ySC3Gck54xkyUjuM5J7zfN756xHu_2t-BVKAdgMpDLyVzb-sfq_rj8Bq-ueAQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1758980670</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Single-Layer Continuous Versus Double-Layer Continuous Suture in Colonic Anastomoses—a Randomized Multicentre Trial (ANATECH Trial)</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Herrle, F. ; Diener, M. K. ; Freudenberg, S. ; Willeke, F. ; Kienle, P. ; Boenninghoff, R. ; Weiss, C. ; Partecke, L. I. ; Schuld, J. ; Post, S.</creator><creatorcontrib>Herrle, F. ; Diener, M. K. ; Freudenberg, S. ; Willeke, F. ; Kienle, P. ; Boenninghoff, R. ; Weiss, C. ; Partecke, L. I. ; Schuld, J. ; Post, S.</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose Apart from stapling methods, single- or double-layer continuous hand sutures are established techniques for colonic anastomoses. It is unclear which hand suture technique has superior anastomotic safety. This randomized trial evaluated the incidence of postoperative complications depending on anastomosis technique. Methods This multicentre randomized trial enrolled adult elective patients between February 2004 and June 2012 in four German university hospitals. Primary endpoint was incidence of clinical anastomotic leakage until 3 months postoperatively. Estimated sample size was 768 randomized patients. Main secondary endpoints were duration of anastomotic suture, postoperative morbidity and stool patterns at 3-month follow-up. Patients and postoperative outcome assessors were blinded to the group assignment. This trial is registered (NCT00996554). Results Due to slow recruitment, the trial was stopped prematurely. Two hundred fifty-two patients (129 to single-layer suture anastomosis (SLA), 123 to double-layer suture anastomosis (DLA)) were randomized and analysed. Nine patients (3.6 %) were lost during follow-up. Exploratory primary endpoint analysis by intention-to-treat principle showed no significant difference for clinical anastomotic leakage between suturing techniques (SLA, 4 of 129 (3.1 %) vs. DLA, 6 of 123 (4.9 %), p  = 0.532). Secondary endpoint analysis showed on average a 6-min shorter suture duration for SLA than DLA (18 min (4–49) vs. 24 min (8–50), p  &lt; 0.001). At 3-month follow-up, subjective well-being and stool patterns were not significantly different between groups. Conclusions The present study did not reach sufficient power and cannot confirm whether both techniques might be equally or if one technique might be superior. Exploratory analysis suggests that in elective colonic resections, the single-layer continuous hand suture technique may be equally effective as the double-layer technique regarding incidence of anastomotic leakage, length of hospital stay, overall postoperative complications, subjective short-term well-being and stool patterns. Lessons learned from this trial course are summarized. Trial Registration This trial is registered (Trial registration: NCT00996554). Link: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00996554 .</description><identifier>ISSN: 1091-255X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-4626</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11605-015-3003-0</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26525206</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer US</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Anastomosis, Surgical - adverse effects ; Anastomosis, Surgical - methods ; Anastomotic Leak - epidemiology ; Colon - surgery ; Colorectal surgery ; Elective Surgical Procedures - adverse effects ; Female ; Gastroenterology ; Hospitals ; Humans ; Ileum - surgery ; Incidence ; Length of Stay ; Male ; Medicine ; Medicine &amp; Public Health ; Middle Aged ; Original Article ; Surgery ; Surgical anastomosis ; Suture Techniques - adverse effects ; Sutures ; Vascular surgery</subject><ispartof>Journal of gastrointestinal surgery, 2016-02, Vol.20 (2), p.421-430</ispartof><rights>The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract 2015</rights><rights>The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract 2016</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c442t-b56531120fb14acbea45be8c49761c75dce4703b9fca115cc912ab6ec30bba2b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c442t-b56531120fb14acbea45be8c49761c75dce4703b9fca115cc912ab6ec30bba2b3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11605-015-3003-0$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11605-015-3003-0$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27915,27916,41479,42548,51310</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26525206$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Herrle, F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Diener, M. K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Freudenberg, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Willeke, F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kienle, P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Boenninghoff, R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Weiss, C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Partecke, L. I.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schuld, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Post, S.</creatorcontrib><title>Single-Layer Continuous Versus Double-Layer Continuous Suture in Colonic Anastomoses—a Randomized Multicentre Trial (ANATECH Trial)</title><title>Journal of gastrointestinal surgery</title><addtitle>J Gastrointest Surg</addtitle><addtitle>J Gastrointest Surg</addtitle><description>Purpose Apart from stapling methods, single- or double-layer continuous hand sutures are established techniques for colonic anastomoses. It is unclear which hand suture technique has superior anastomotic safety. This randomized trial evaluated the incidence of postoperative complications depending on anastomosis technique. Methods This multicentre randomized trial enrolled adult elective patients between February 2004 and June 2012 in four German university hospitals. Primary endpoint was incidence of clinical anastomotic leakage until 3 months postoperatively. Estimated sample size was 768 randomized patients. Main secondary endpoints were duration of anastomotic suture, postoperative morbidity and stool patterns at 3-month follow-up. Patients and postoperative outcome assessors were blinded to the group assignment. This trial is registered (NCT00996554). Results Due to slow recruitment, the trial was stopped prematurely. Two hundred fifty-two patients (129 to single-layer suture anastomosis (SLA), 123 to double-layer suture anastomosis (DLA)) were randomized and analysed. Nine patients (3.6 %) were lost during follow-up. Exploratory primary endpoint analysis by intention-to-treat principle showed no significant difference for clinical anastomotic leakage between suturing techniques (SLA, 4 of 129 (3.1 %) vs. DLA, 6 of 123 (4.9 %), p  = 0.532). Secondary endpoint analysis showed on average a 6-min shorter suture duration for SLA than DLA (18 min (4–49) vs. 24 min (8–50), p  &lt; 0.001). At 3-month follow-up, subjective well-being and stool patterns were not significantly different between groups. Conclusions The present study did not reach sufficient power and cannot confirm whether both techniques might be equally or if one technique might be superior. Exploratory analysis suggests that in elective colonic resections, the single-layer continuous hand suture technique may be equally effective as the double-layer technique regarding incidence of anastomotic leakage, length of hospital stay, overall postoperative complications, subjective short-term well-being and stool patterns. Lessons learned from this trial course are summarized. Trial Registration This trial is registered (Trial registration: NCT00996554). Link: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00996554 .</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Anastomosis, Surgical - adverse effects</subject><subject>Anastomosis, Surgical - methods</subject><subject>Anastomotic Leak - epidemiology</subject><subject>Colon - surgery</subject><subject>Colorectal surgery</subject><subject>Elective Surgical Procedures - adverse effects</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Gastroenterology</subject><subject>Hospitals</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Ileum - surgery</subject><subject>Incidence</subject><subject>Length of Stay</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine &amp; Public Health</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Original Article</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Surgical anastomosis</subject><subject>Suture Techniques - adverse effects</subject><subject>Sutures</subject><subject>Vascular surgery</subject><issn>1091-255X</issn><issn>1873-4626</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kcFu1DAQhi1ERcvCA3BBkbiUg8uMEzvJcbUUirQtEl0QN8v2eitXid3a8aGcuPAGPCFPglcpCCE4jT3z_f_Y-gl5hnCCAO2rhCiAU0BOa4CawgNyhF1b00Yw8bCcoUfKOP98SB6ndA2ALWD3iBwywRlnII7It0vnrwZL1-rOxmoV_OR8DjlVn2xMpbwOWf9rfJmnHG3lfGkOwTtTLb1KUxhDsunH1--q-qD8Nozui91W53mYnLF-KopNdGqojpcXy83p6my-vnxCDnZqSPbpfV2Qj29ON6szun7_9t1quaamadhENRe8RmSw09goo61quLadafpWoGn51timhVr3O6MQuTE9MqWFNTVorZiuF-R49r2J4TbbNMnRJWOHQXlbfiWxFdCD6Gss6Iu_0OuQoy-vKxTv-g5EWbUgOFMmhpSi3cmb6EYV7ySC3Gck54xkyUjuM5J7zfN756xHu_2t-BVKAdgMpDLyVzb-sfq_rj8Bq-ueAQ</recordid><startdate>20160201</startdate><enddate>20160201</enddate><creator>Herrle, F.</creator><creator>Diener, M. K.</creator><creator>Freudenberg, S.</creator><creator>Willeke, F.</creator><creator>Kienle, P.</creator><creator>Boenninghoff, R.</creator><creator>Weiss, C.</creator><creator>Partecke, L. I.</creator><creator>Schuld, J.</creator><creator>Post, S.</creator><general>Springer US</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20160201</creationdate><title>Single-Layer Continuous Versus Double-Layer Continuous Suture in Colonic Anastomoses—a Randomized Multicentre Trial (ANATECH Trial)</title><author>Herrle, F. ; Diener, M. K. ; Freudenberg, S. ; Willeke, F. ; Kienle, P. ; Boenninghoff, R. ; Weiss, C. ; Partecke, L. I. ; Schuld, J. ; Post, S.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c442t-b56531120fb14acbea45be8c49761c75dce4703b9fca115cc912ab6ec30bba2b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Anastomosis, Surgical - adverse effects</topic><topic>Anastomosis, Surgical - methods</topic><topic>Anastomotic Leak - epidemiology</topic><topic>Colon - surgery</topic><topic>Colorectal surgery</topic><topic>Elective Surgical Procedures - adverse effects</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Gastroenterology</topic><topic>Hospitals</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Ileum - surgery</topic><topic>Incidence</topic><topic>Length of Stay</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine &amp; Public Health</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Original Article</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Surgical anastomosis</topic><topic>Suture Techniques - adverse effects</topic><topic>Sutures</topic><topic>Vascular surgery</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Herrle, F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Diener, M. K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Freudenberg, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Willeke, F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kienle, P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Boenninghoff, R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Weiss, C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Partecke, L. I.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schuld, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Post, S.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Proquest Nursing &amp; Allied Health Source</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of gastrointestinal surgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Herrle, F.</au><au>Diener, M. K.</au><au>Freudenberg, S.</au><au>Willeke, F.</au><au>Kienle, P.</au><au>Boenninghoff, R.</au><au>Weiss, C.</au><au>Partecke, L. I.</au><au>Schuld, J.</au><au>Post, S.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Single-Layer Continuous Versus Double-Layer Continuous Suture in Colonic Anastomoses—a Randomized Multicentre Trial (ANATECH Trial)</atitle><jtitle>Journal of gastrointestinal surgery</jtitle><stitle>J Gastrointest Surg</stitle><addtitle>J Gastrointest Surg</addtitle><date>2016-02-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>20</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>421</spage><epage>430</epage><pages>421-430</pages><issn>1091-255X</issn><eissn>1873-4626</eissn><abstract>Purpose Apart from stapling methods, single- or double-layer continuous hand sutures are established techniques for colonic anastomoses. It is unclear which hand suture technique has superior anastomotic safety. This randomized trial evaluated the incidence of postoperative complications depending on anastomosis technique. Methods This multicentre randomized trial enrolled adult elective patients between February 2004 and June 2012 in four German university hospitals. Primary endpoint was incidence of clinical anastomotic leakage until 3 months postoperatively. Estimated sample size was 768 randomized patients. Main secondary endpoints were duration of anastomotic suture, postoperative morbidity and stool patterns at 3-month follow-up. Patients and postoperative outcome assessors were blinded to the group assignment. This trial is registered (NCT00996554). Results Due to slow recruitment, the trial was stopped prematurely. Two hundred fifty-two patients (129 to single-layer suture anastomosis (SLA), 123 to double-layer suture anastomosis (DLA)) were randomized and analysed. Nine patients (3.6 %) were lost during follow-up. Exploratory primary endpoint analysis by intention-to-treat principle showed no significant difference for clinical anastomotic leakage between suturing techniques (SLA, 4 of 129 (3.1 %) vs. DLA, 6 of 123 (4.9 %), p  = 0.532). Secondary endpoint analysis showed on average a 6-min shorter suture duration for SLA than DLA (18 min (4–49) vs. 24 min (8–50), p  &lt; 0.001). At 3-month follow-up, subjective well-being and stool patterns were not significantly different between groups. Conclusions The present study did not reach sufficient power and cannot confirm whether both techniques might be equally or if one technique might be superior. Exploratory analysis suggests that in elective colonic resections, the single-layer continuous hand suture technique may be equally effective as the double-layer technique regarding incidence of anastomotic leakage, length of hospital stay, overall postoperative complications, subjective short-term well-being and stool patterns. Lessons learned from this trial course are summarized. Trial Registration This trial is registered (Trial registration: NCT00996554). Link: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00996554 .</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer US</pub><pmid>26525206</pmid><doi>10.1007/s11605-015-3003-0</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1091-255X
ispartof Journal of gastrointestinal surgery, 2016-02, Vol.20 (2), p.421-430
issn 1091-255X
1873-4626
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1760906931
source MEDLINE; SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings
subjects Adult
Aged
Anastomosis, Surgical - adverse effects
Anastomosis, Surgical - methods
Anastomotic Leak - epidemiology
Colon - surgery
Colorectal surgery
Elective Surgical Procedures - adverse effects
Female
Gastroenterology
Hospitals
Humans
Ileum - surgery
Incidence
Length of Stay
Male
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Middle Aged
Original Article
Surgery
Surgical anastomosis
Suture Techniques - adverse effects
Sutures
Vascular surgery
title Single-Layer Continuous Versus Double-Layer Continuous Suture in Colonic Anastomoses—a Randomized Multicentre Trial (ANATECH Trial)
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-14T23%3A14%3A17IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Single-Layer%20Continuous%20Versus%20Double-Layer%20Continuous%20Suture%20in%20Colonic%20Anastomoses%E2%80%94a%20Randomized%20Multicentre%20Trial%20(ANATECH%20Trial)&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20gastrointestinal%20surgery&rft.au=Herrle,%20F.&rft.date=2016-02-01&rft.volume=20&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=421&rft.epage=430&rft.pages=421-430&rft.issn=1091-255X&rft.eissn=1873-4626&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11605-015-3003-0&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3929301221%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1758980670&rft_id=info:pmid/26525206&rfr_iscdi=true