Experimental Devices Versus Hand-Sewn Anastomosis of the Aorta: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Abstract Background To minimize complications associated with the construction of the hand-sewn aortic anastomosis, alternative experimental methods have been pursued. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of experimental anastomotic devices in relation to time and point of rupture of the anastomosis in comparison to the conventional technique. Materials and methods An electronic search was performed using MEDLINE, Scopus, Science Direct, and Cochrane Library databases by two independent authors. Our exclusion criteria referred to studies reporting results solely from end-to-side anastomosis, results on vessels other than the aorta, studies that did not involve animal experiments, and non-English publications. The last search date was January 1, 2020. Results The meta-analysis included 22 studies with 34 anastomosis samples and a total of 316 animals. The pooled mean automated anastomosis time was 10.38 min, and the mean point of rupture was 32.7 N. In the subgroup analysis of automated anastomosis time by device category, the anastomotic stenting technique reported significantly lower anastomosis time but also showed significantly lower point of rupture. Comparing the efficacy of experimental devices and the hand-sewn technique, our pooled analysis showed that automated devices significantly decrease the time needed to perform the anastomosis (weighted mean difference −7.24 min). On the other hand, the automated anastomosis is also associated with decreased tensile strength (weighted mean difference −20.68 N). Conclusions Although experimental devices seem to offer a faster anastomosis, they lack endurance when compared with the hand-sewn technique. Further research is needed for the development of an “ideal” anastomotic technique.