Skip to content


  • Research article
  • Open Access

Sutureless jejuno-jejunal anastomosis in gastric cancer patients: a comparison with handsewn procedure in a single institute

  • Luigi Marano1Email author,
  • Bartolomeo Braccio1,
  • Michele Schettino1,
  • Giuseppe Izzo1,
  • Angelo Cosenza1,
  • Michele Grassia1,
  • Raffaele Porfidia1,
  • Gianmarco Reda1,
  • Marianna Petrillo1,
  • Giuseppe Esposito1 and
  • Natale Di Martino1
BMC Surgery201212(Suppl 1):S27

Published: 15 November 2012



The biofragmentable anastomotic ring has been used to this day for various types of anastomosis in the gastrointestinal tract, but it has not yet achieved widespread acceptance among surgeons. The purpose of this retrospective study is to compare surgical outcomes of sutureless with suture method of Roux-and-Y jejunojejunostomy in patients with gastric cancer.


Two groups of patients were obtained based on anastomosis technique (sutureless group versus hand sewn group): perioperative outcomes were recorded for every patient.


The mean time spent to complete a sutureless anastomosis was 11±4 min, whereas the time spent to perform hand sewn anastomosis was 23±7 min. Estimated intraoperative blood loss was 178±32ml in the sutureless group and 182±23ml in the suture-method group with no significant differences. No complications were registered related to enteroanastomosis. Intraoperative mortality was none for both groups.


The Biofragmentable Anastomotic Ring offers a safe and time-saving method for the jejuno-jejunal anastomosis in gastric cancer surgery, and for this purpose the ring has been approved as a standard method in our clinic. Nevertheless currently there are few studies on upper gastrointestinal sutureless anastomoses and this could be the reason for the low uptake of this device.


Gastric CancerTotal GastrectomyGastric ResectionAnastomosis GroupGastric Cancer Surgery


The concept of compression anastomosis was introduced for the first time in February 1826 at the meeting of the Societe Royale de Medicine de Marseilles by Felix-Nicholas Denans who performed an end-to-end anastomosis using a metallic (silver or zinc) ring in a canine model [1]. At that time, this technique was still evolving, and in 1892 Murphy developed a new device of compression anastomosis in humans [26], which has been called “Murphy’s button”, that was extensively used. However, its clinical success was limited for relatively common anastomotic stenosis [7]. Approximately one century after Murphy, in 1985, Hardy et al [8] described the biofragmentable anastomotic ring (BAR). This device has been used so far for various types of anastomosis in the upper and lower gastrointestinal tract [614], for elective and emergency surgery [8, 1018], but it has not yet achieved widespread acceptance among surgeons [19]. The purpose of this retrospective study is to compare surgical outcomes of BAR with suture method of Roux-and-Y jejunojejunostomy in patients with gastric cancer who have undergone to total or partial gastrectomy.

Material and methods

From April 2002 to June 2010, 131 patients with a mean age of 64 years (range 37-89), 87 males and 44 females with a diagnosis of gastric cancer referred to the 8th General and Gastrointestinal Surgery of the Second University of Naples. Six of these 131 patients (3 males and 3 females) were not resectable in the course of surgery due to local extent of the tumor; one patient was not operable due to the presence of restrictive lung disease and aortic aneurysm, and one refused the operation. The patients who underwent gastric surgery were 123 (82 males and 41 females). 112 patients had a diagnosis of gastric adenocarcinoma, 10 non-Hodgkin lymphoma and 1 gastric carcinoid. Two groups of patients were obtained based on anastomosis technique: in the first group of 64 patients (43 males and 21 females, mean age 64.9) an end-to-side Roux-and-Y jejunojejunostomy was performed using a BAR after 57 total gastrectomy and 7 gastric resections. In the second group of 59 patients (37 males and 22 females, mean age 63.95) an end-to-side Roux-and-Y jejunojejunostomy suture method anastomosis was performed after 57 total gastrectomy and 2 gastric resections. BAR is made of 2 identical rings, each composed of 87.5% absorbable polyglycolic acid and 12.5% barium sulfate acting as a “radiopaque dye” to enhance x-ray imaging (abdominal X-ray examination showed BAR fragmentation approximately between 2 and 3 weeks after surgery [20]) . The rings have an internal lumen that varies from 11 to 20 mm in diameter, depending on the size and are placed into the cut bowel ends. When the device is closed a 1.5- to 2.5-mm gap remains between the 2 rings to prevent extensive tissue ischemia. The appropriate size of BAR device is crucial for a successful anastomosis; the ring must be compatible with the diameter of the bowel and the thickness of the bowel wall [1719]. If the gap between the 2 rings is too large, a proper seroserosal approximation of the bowel ends will not be achieved, whereas if the compression zone is too narrow, the closing dynamics of the BAR can be altered and the tissue grasped in the gap can be subjected to extensive ischemic necrosis, leading to early detachment of the BAR [21]. An external diameter of 28 mm was preferred in all our patients for enteric anastomosis, whereas that of 31 mm or more was used in colonic or rectal anastomosis [19]. During the procedure, excessive snap pressure should be avoided since the BAR material is relatively friable [18]. The BAR anastomosis was performed by using a standard technique: after a total gastrectomy with an end-to-side esophagojejunostomy or a partial gastrectomy with side-to-end gastrojejunostomy, monofilament not- absorbable pursestring suture is placed, before bowel resection, at the jejunal wall along the pursestring clamp applied tangentially to antimesenterical fold, approximately 60 cm down from esophagojejunostomy or gastrojejunostomy. After bowel resection, a BAR of 28 mm is introduced into the proximal jejunum first by means of the inserter and then the pursestring suture is tied (Figure 1). After removal of the inserter, the other side of the BAR is inserted into the end jejunal wall and the second pursestring is tied (Figures 2 and 3). The BAR is snapped shut by index finger and thumb pressure of two hands, forming a serosa-to-serosa inverted sutureless anastomosis (Figure 4). Before closing the ring the possible rotational error at the anastomosis is corrected. The manually sutured jejunojejunal anastomosis, following the same procedures as described for suturless anastomosis, is achieved by continuous 3-0 polyglycolic acid multifilament in two layers with inversion technique. Patient demographics, operative procedure, type and location of the anastomosis, overall operating time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative course and complications, if observed, were recorded for every patient. Postoperative completeness of the BAR anastomosis and fragmentation of the BAR ring were confirmed by abdominal x-ray at 7th and 30th day after surgery. The study was approved by the ethics committee of Second University of Naples and conducted according to the ethical standards of the Helsinki declaration. Each patient gave informed written consent.
Figure 1
Figure 1

Introduction of 28mm BAR into the proximal jejunum

Figure 2
Figure 2

The other side of the BAR is inserted into the end jejunal wall

Figure 3
Figure 3

The second purse-string is tied

Figure 4
Figure 4

The BAR is snapped forming a serosa-to-serosa inverted sutureless anastomosis


64 end-to-side Roux-and-Y jejunojejunostomy were performed using a BAR after 57 total gastrectomy and 7 gastric resections. 59 end-to-side Roux-and-Y jejunojejunostomy suture method anastomosis were performed after 57 total gastrectomy and 2 gastric resections for gastric cancer. The mean time spent to complete a BAR anastomosis was 11±4 min, being the time spent to perform hand sewn anastomosis 23±7 min (p=0.030 ). In the BAR group the estimated operative blood loss was lower compared to the suture-method group (178±32ml and 182±23ml respectively), however the difference didn’t reach a statistical significance (p=0.065). The postoperative course was uneventful in 75% (n=44) patients in the suture group and in 95.1% (n=61) the patients in the BAR group. No intraoperative mortality for both groups was found. The assessment of surgical morbidity revealed a complication rate of about 7.8% for the compression anastomosis group (2 intestinal obstructions treated with surgery; 1 duodenal fistula treated with medical therapy; 2 wall infections treated with medical therapy) compared to 8.5% for the sutured anastomosis group (1 duodenal fistula treated with medical therapy; 1 pancreatic fistula treated with medical therapy; 1 intestinal obstruction treated with surgery; 2 esophago-jejunal anastomotic leakages, respectively, treated with medical and surgical therapy) even if the complications are independents of the enteroanastomosis. The non-surgical morbidity was 16.8% for the BAR group and about 14.1% for the hand sewn group (p=0.183). No significant differences were noted between the groups in the starting time to oral feeding and intestinal canalization (Table 1). The duration of the postoperative hospital stay was also similar in both groups (10±2days in the BAR group; 10±3 in the suture group; p=0.137).
Table 1

Perioperative outcomes of 64 compression end-to-side Roux-and-Y jejunojejunostomy and 59 handsewn end-to-side Roux-and-Y jejunojejunostomy


Compression anastomosis (n=64)

Handsewn anastomosis (n=59)


Estimated intraoperative blood loss

178±32 ml

182±23 ml


Mean jejunojejunostomy time

11±4 min

23±7 min


Intraoperative mortality




Surgical morbidity




Intestinal obstruction

2 (n)

1 (n)


Duodenal fistula

1 (n)

1 (n)


Pancreatic fistula


1 (n)


Esophago-jejunal leakage


1 (n)


Wall infections

2 (n)



Non-surgical morbidity




Starting time to oral feeding

7th day

7th day


Intestinal canalization

2.1±0.6 min

2.3±0.5 min


Mean hospital stay

10±2 days

10±3 days


N.E. Not evaluated


The usefulness of BAR is well established in colonic anastomoses, but the effectiveness of a compression ring in small bowel anastomoses after gastric cancer surgery has not yet been well proven. Encouraged by little but favorable experiences with the device in colonic surgery we decided to analyze the outcomes of jejuno-jejunal BAR anastomosis compared with jejuno-jejunal hand sewn anastomosis. Our results demonstrate that patients with a jejuno-jejunal BAR anastomosis recover from upper gastrointestinal resections with no delay when compared to those with a manually sutured, conventional anastomosis. The most significant complication associated with anastomosis is anastomotic leakage [19]: although the occurrence of severe complications was lightly more frequent in the suture group (8.5%) when compared with sutureless group (7.8%), they were independent of the enteroanastomosis. In particular, the none overall jejuno-jejunal leak rate in the present study, as exhibited also by other Authors (2-4.2%) [1014, 17, 18, 22, 23], probably indicate that the compression anastomosis is effective and a safe surgical procedure. Furthermore the surgical technique of BAR anastomosis represents a standardized approach with a very low period of the learning curve. Selection of the appropriate size of the ring and gap width is thought to be one of the critical determinants for a successful BAR anastomosis [19]. In the present study, for ease of use, we preferred to use the ring with external diameter of 28 mm. without any resistance at introduction into bowel lumen for all patients. Another advantage of BAR anastomosis is that it is a faster procedure than hand sewn method, because the mean time of compression procedure is approximately 50% less than the suture procedure, as resulting from our data (11±4 min of BAR anastomoses versus 23±7 min of suture anastomoses (p<0.05)). Therefore it can be applied more preferably to patients with comorbidities where both rapidity and security of the anastomosis is required [14, 16, 17, 22, 23].


In our opinion the Biofragmentable Anastomotic Ring offers a safe and time-saving method for the jejuno-jejunal anastomosis in gastric cancer surgery, and for this purpose the ring has been approved as a standard method in our clinic. Nevertheless, currently there are few studies on upper gastrointestinal BAR anastomoses and this could be the reason for the low uptake of this device.

List of abbreviations used


Biofragmentable Anastomotic Ring.



The authors thank Dr Francesco Torelli for participating at some surgical intervention as surgeon’s assistant.

This article has been published as part of BMC Surgery Volume 12 Supplement 1, 2012: Selected articles from the XXV National Congress of the Italian Society of Geriatric Surgery. The full contents of the supplement are available online at

Authors’ Affiliations

Institution: VIII General and Gastrointestinal Surgery (Chief Prof. N. Di Martino) - School of Medicine, Second University of Naples, Naples, Italy


  1. Kaidar-Person O, Rosenthal RJ, Wexner SD, Szomstein S, Person B: Compression anastomoses: history and clinical considerations. Am J Surg. 2008, 195: 818-26. 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2007.10.006.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Booth CC: What has technology done to gastroenterology?. Gut. 1985, 26: 1088-94. 10.1136/gut.26.10.1088.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Amat C: Appareils a sutures: Les viroles de denans; les points de Bonnier: Les boutons de Murphy. Arch Med Pharmacie Militaires Paris. 1895, 25: 273-85.Google Scholar
  4. Murphy JB: Cholecysto-intestinal, gastro-intestinal, entero-intestinal anastomosis, and approximation without sutures. Med Rec N Y. 1892, 42: 665-76.Google Scholar
  5. Gordon RC, John B: Murphy: unique among American surgeons. J Invest Surg. 2006, 19: 279-81. 10.1080/08941930600889367.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. McCue JL, Phillips RK: Sutureless intestinal anastomoses. Br J Surg. 1991, 78: 1291-6. 10.1002/bjs.1800781105. Sutureless intestinal anastomosesView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Senn N: Enterorrhaphy: its history, technique and present status. JAMA. 1893, 21: 215-35.Google Scholar
  8. Hardy TG, Pace WG, Maney JW, Katz AR, Kaganov AL: A biofragmentable ring for sutureless bowel anastomosis. An experimental study. Dis Colon Rectum. 1985, 28: 484-90. 10.1007/BF02554090.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Kanshin NN, Lytkin MI, Knysh VI, Klur Vlu, Khamidov AL: First experience with application of compression anastomoses with the apparatus AKA-2 in operations on the large intestine. Vestn Khir Im I I Grek. 1984, 132: 52-7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Bubrick MP, Corman ML, Cahill CJ, Hardy TG, Nance FC, Shatney CH: Prospective, randomized trial of the biofragmentable anastomosis ring. The BAR InvestigationalGroup. Am J Surg. 1991, 161: 136-42. 10.1016/0002-9610(91)90374-M.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Cahill CJ, Betzler M, Gruwez JA, Jeekel J, Patel JC, Zederfeldt B: Sutureless large bowel anastomosis: European experience with the biofragmentable anastomosis ring. Br J Surg. 1989, 76: 344-7. 10.1002/bjs.1800760409.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Corman ML, Prager ED, Hardy TG, Bubrick MP: Comparison of the Valtrac biofragmentable anastomosis ring with conventional suture and stapled anastomosis in colon surgery. Results of a prospective randomized clinical trial. Dis Colon Rectum. 1989, 32: 183-7. 10.1007/BF02554523.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Gullichsen R, Ovaska J, Rantala A, Havia T: Small bowel anastomosis with the biofragmentable anastomosis ring and manual suture: a prospective, randomized study. World J Surg. 1992, 16: 1006-9. 10.1007/BF02067019.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Pahlman L, Ejerblad S, Graf W, Kader F, Kressner U, Lindmark G, et al: Randomized trial of a biofragmentable bowel anastomosis ring in high-risk colonic resection. Br J Surg. 1997, 84: 1291-4. 10.1002/bjs.1800840927.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Seow-Choen F, Eu KW: Circular staplers versus the biofragmentable ring for colorectal anastomosis: a prospective randomized study. Br J Surg. 1994, 81: 1790-1. 10.1002/bjs.1800811227.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Fansler RF, Mero K, Steinberg SM, McSwain NE, Flint LM, Ferrara JJ: Utility of the biofragmentable anastomotic ring in traumatic small bowel injury. Am Surg. 1994, 60: 379-83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Thiede A, Geiger D, Dietz UA, Debus ES, Engemann R, Lexer GC, et al: Overview on compression anastomoses: biofragmentable anastomosis ring multicenter prospective trial of 1666 anastomoses. World J Surg. 1998, 22: 78-86. 10.1007/s002689900353.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Choi HJ, Kim HH, Jung GJ, Kim SS: Intestinal anastomosis by use of the biofragmentable anastomotic ring: is it safe and efficacious in emergency operations as well?. Dis Colon Rectum. 1998, 41: 1281-6. 10.1007/BF02258229.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Kim SH, Choi HJ, Park KJ, Kim JM, Kim KH, Kim MC, et al: Sutureless intestinal anastomosis with the biofragmentable anastomosis ring: experience of 632 anastomoses in a single institute. Dis Colon Rectum. 2005, 48 (11): 2127-32. 10.1007/s10350-005-0144-3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Aggarwal R, Darzi A: Compression anastomoses revisited. J Am Coll Surg. 2005, 201: 965-71. 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2005.06.255.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Galizia G, Lieto E, Castellano P, Pelosio L, Imperatore V, Canfora F, et al: Comparison between the biofragmentable anastomosis ring and stapled anastomoses in the extraperitoneal rectum: a prospective, randomized study. Int J Colorectal Dis. 1999, 14: 286-90. 10.1007/s003840050230.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Di Castro A, Biancari F, Brocato R, Adami EA, Truosolo B, Massi G: Intestinal anastomosis with the biofragmentable anastomosis ring. Am J Surg. 1998, 176: 472-4. 10.1016/S0002-9610(98)00241-4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Ghitulescu GA, Morin N, Jetty P, Belliveau P: Revisiting the biofragmentable anastomotic ring: is it safe in colonic surgery?. Can J Surg. 2003, 46: 92-8.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar


© Marano et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2012

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.