Impact of different anastomosis methods on post-recurrence after intestinal resection for Crohn's disease: A meta-analysis

Table 1 Characteristics of the included studies

Ref.	Country	Type of study	Total number of patients	Kono-S anastomosis			Traditional anastomosis
				No. of patients	Age	M/F	No. of patients	Age	M/F
Shimada et al[15], 2019	Japan	Retro/cohort study	215	117	39.00 ± 3.13	84/33	98	35.06 ± 11.29	74/24
Tyrode et al[19], 2023	France	Retro/cohort study	85	30	36.11 ± 14.01	13/17	55	33.83 ± 12.79	24/31
Kelm et al[20], 2022	Germany	Retro/cohort study	51	22	38.41 ± 11.00	14/8	29	38.42 ± 13.57	14/15
Alibert et al[21], 2023	France	Retro/cohort study	432	155	38.20 ± 13.90	79/76	277	37.60 ± 14.20	107/170
Kono et al[22], 2011	Japan	Retro/cohort study	142	69	32.36 ± 9.09	57/12	73	29.38 ± 10.06	58/15
Luglio et al[23], 2020	Italy	RCT	79	36	34.75 ± 5.91	18/18	43	43.10 ± 7.55	22/21

Retro: Retrospective; RCT: Randomized clinical trial.

Table 2 Raw data of each included study

Ref.	Hospital stay (d)	Postoperative morbidity (%)	Recurrence rate (%)	Mean Rutgeerts score	Clavien-Dindo ≥ IIIa (%)
Shimada et al[15]
Kono-S anastomosis	NR	64/117(54.70)	4/117 (3.4)	NR	NR
Traditional anastomosis	NR	68/98(69.39)	24/98 (24.5)	NR	NR
Tyrode et al[19]
Kono-S anastomosis	6.71 ± 1.56	2/30(6.66)	17/30 (56.66)	NR	5/30 (16.67)
Traditional anastomosis	7.00 ± 1.52	6/55(10.90)	27/55 (49.10)	NR	9/55 (16.36)
Kelm et al[20]
Kono-S anastomosis	8.1 ± 2.34	15/22(68.19)	7/22 (31.82)	1.70 ± 0.32	3/22 (13.64)
Traditional anastomosis	8.1 ± 2.56	9/29(31.03)	13/29 (44.83)	2.50 ± 0.86	4/29 (13.79)
Alibert et al[21]
Kono-S anastomosis	6.20 ± 4.00	70/155(45.16)	NR	NR	7/155 (4.52)
Traditional anastomosis	7.80 ± 5.60	79/277(28.52)	NR	NR	21/277 (7.58)
Kono et al[22]
Kono-S anastomosis	NR	3/69(4.34)	49/69 (71.01)	2.58 ± 0.63	NR
Traditional anastomosis	NR	7/73(9.59)	58/73 (79.45)	3.34 ± 0.42	NR
Luglio et al[23]
Kono-S anastomosis	7.00 ± 3.00	16.67	8/36 (22.22)	1.05 ± 1.06	NR
Traditional anastomosis	7.60 ± 3.08	25.58	27/43 (62.79)	2.30 ± 1.32	NR

NR: Not reported.

Table 3 Quality of the included studies based on the Newcastle-Ottawa scale

Ref.	Representativeness of the exposed cohort	Selection of the non-exposed cohort	Ascertainment of exposure	Demonstration that outcome of interest was not present at the start of the study	Comparability of cohorts based on the design or analysis	Assessment of outcome	Was follow-up long enough for outcomes to occur	Adequacy of follow-up of cohorts	Total scores
Shimada et al[15]	1	1	1	1	2	1	1	1	9
Tyrode et al[19]	1	1	1	0	2	1	1	1	8
Kelm et al[20]	1	1	1	1	1	0	1	1	8
Alibert et al[21]	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	7
Kono et al[22]	1	1	1	0	2	1	1	1	8