SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2001
Stapled versus handsewn methods for colorectal anastomosis surgery.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
57 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 114 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review of systematic reviews and panoramic meta-analysis: staples versus sutures for surgical procedures.PloS one · 2013Pooled it
- Ileostomy or colostomy for temporary decompression of colorectal anastomosis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2007Pooled it
- End-to-end intestinal anastomosis using a novel biodegradable stent for laparoscopic colonic surgery: a multicenter study.Surgery today · 2019Trial
- Microbiological spectrum of the intraperitoneal surface after elective right-sided colon cancer: are there differences in the peritoneal contamination after performing a stapled or a handsewn anastomosis?International journal of colorectal disease · 2012Trial
- Randomised multicentre trial of circular stapling devices.International journal of colorectal disease · 2012Trial
- The Modified Triple Stapler Technique for Colorectal and Coloanal Anastomosis: A Retrospective Study of 132 Patients.Cureus · 2025Article
- Comparing extracorporeal, semi-extracorporeal, and intracorporeal anastomosis in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: introducing a bridging technique for colorectal surgeons.Annals of surgical treatment and research · 2024Article
- Effect of reinforcement suture on anastomotic healing in rectal and sigmoid tumor resections, single-center experience: a retrospective case-controlled study.Annals of coloproctology · 2023Article
- A novel knotless hand-sewn end-to-end anastomosis using V-loc barbed suture vs. stapled anastomosis in laparoscopic left colonic surgery: A propensity scoring match analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- Analysis of the impact of EEA stapler size on risk of anastomotic complications in colorectal anastomosis: does size matter?Techniques in coloproctology · 2020Article
- Hybrid fluorescent magnetic gastrojejunostomy: an experimental feasibility study in the porcine model and human cadaver.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Article
- Development andFrontiers in surgery · 2020Article
- Retrospective multicenter study of post-operative stenosis after stapled colorectal anastomosis.Updates in surgery · 2019Article
- Does advancement in stapling technology with triple-row and enhanced staple configurations confer additional safety? A matched comparison of 340 stapled ileocolic anastomoses.Surgical endoscopy · 2018Article
- Frequency of equivocation in surgical meta-evidence: a review of systematic reviews within IBD literature.BMJ open · 2017Review
- Predictive Factors for Small Intestinal and Colonic Anastomotic Leak: a Multivariate Analysis.The Indian journal of surgery · 2017Article
- Pouch pseudoaneurysm: a rare cause of recurrent haemorrhage following ileal pouch-anal anastomosis.BMJ case reports · 2017Article
- Diagnosis and Management of Intraoperative Colorectal Anastomotic Leaks: A Global Retrospective Patient Chart Review Study.Surgery research and practice · 2017Article
- En bloc pelvic resection for advanced ovarian cancer preceded by central ligation of vessels supplying the tumor bed: a description of surgical technique and a feasibility study.World journal of surgical oncology · 2016Article
- Laparoscopy following peritoneal entry during transanal endoscopic microsurgery may increase the safety and maximize the benefits of the transanal excision.Techniques in coloproctology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRandomized controlled trials comparing stapled with handsewn colorectal anastomosis have not shown either technique to be superior, perhaps because individual studies lacked statistical power. A systematic review, with pooled analysis of results, might provide a more definitive answer.
objectivesTo compare the safety and effectiveness of stapled and handsewn colorectal anastomosis. The following primary hypothesis was tested: the stapled technique is more effective because it decreases the level of complications. SEARCH STRATEGY: The RCT register of the Cochrane Review Group was searched for any trial or reference to a relevant trial (published, in-press, or in progress). All publications were sought through computerised searches of EMBASE, LILACS, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trials Database, and through letters to industrial companies and authors. There were no limits upon language, date, or other criteria. SELECTION CRITERIA: STUDIES: All randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in which stapled and handsewn colorectal anastomosis were compared.
participantsAdult patients submitted electively to colorectal anastomosis.
interventionsEndoluminal circular stapler and handsewn colorectal anastomosis. OUTCOMES: a) Mortality b) Overall Anastomotic Dehiscence c) Clinical Anastomotic Dehiscence d) Radiological Anastomotic Dehiscence e) Stricture f) Anastomotic Haemorrhage g) Reoperation h) Wound Infection i) Anastomosis Duration j) Hospital Stay. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were independently extracted by the two reviewers (SASL, DM) and cross-checked. The methodological quality of each trial was assessed by the same two reviewers. Details of the randomization (generation and concealment), blinding, whether an intention-to-treat analysis was done, and the number of patients lost to follow-up were recorded. The results of each RCT were summarised on an intention-to-treat basis in 2 x 2 tables for each outcome. External validity was defined by characteristics of the participants, the interventions and the outcomes. The RCTs were stratified according to the level of colorectal anastomosis. The Risk Difference method (random effects model) and NNT for dichotomous outcomes measures and weighted mean difference for continuous outcomes measures, with the corresponding 95% confidence interval, were presented in this review. Statistical heterogeneity was evaluated by using funnel plot and chi-square testing. MAIN
resultsOf the 1233 patients enrolled ( in 9 trials), 622 were treated with stapled, and 611 with manual, suture. The following main results were obtained: a) Mortality: result based on 901 patients; Risk Difference - 0.6% Confidence Interval -2.8% to +1.6%. b) Overall Dehiscence: result based on 1233 patients; Risk Difference 0.2%, 95% Confidence Interval -5.0% to +5.3%. c) Clinical Anastomotic Dehiscence : result based on 1233 patients; Risk Difference -1.4%, 95% Confidence Interval -5.2 to +2.3%. d) Radiological Anastomotic Dehiscence : result based on 825 patients; Risk Difference 1.2%, 95% Confidence Interval -4.8% to +7.3%. e) Stricture: result based on 1042 patients; Risk Difference 4.6%, 95% Confidence Interval 1.2% to 8.1%. Number needed to treat 17, 95% confidence interval 12 to 31. f) Anastomotic Hemorrhage: result based on 662 patients; Risk Difference 2.7%, 95% Confidence Interval - 0.1% to +5.5%. g) Reoperation: result based on 544 patients; Risk Difference 3.9%, 95% Confidence Interval 0.3% to 7.4%. h) Wound Infection: result based on 567 patients; Risk Difference 1.0%, 95% Confidence Interval -2.2% to +4.3%. i) Anastomosis duration: result based on one study (159 patients); Weighted Mean Difference -7.6 minutes, 95% Confidence Interval -12.9 to -2.2 minutes. j) Hospital Stay: result based on one study (159 patients), Weighted Mean Difference 2.0 days, 95% Confidence Interval -3.27 to +7.2 days. REVIEWER'S
conclusionsThe evidence found was insufficient to demonstrate any superiority of stapled over handsewn techniques in colorectal anastomosis, regardless of the level of anastomosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.