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

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.