Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20396908›Full record

SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2010

Staple line reinforcement in laparoscopic bariatric surgery: does it actually make a difference? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

George A Giannopoulos, Nikolaos E Tzanakis, George E Rallis, Stamatis P Efstathiou, Christos Tsigris, Nikolaos I Nikiteas

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. THE ROUTINE USE OF THE METHYLENE BLUE TEST IN SLEEVE GASTRECTOMY: WHY NOT?Arquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgery · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. [Anastomosis and suture insufficiency after interventions for bariatric and metabolic surgery].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2015
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Staple Line Treatment and Bleeding After Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

George A Giannopoulos2nd Propedeutic Department of Surgery, Laikon Hospital, University of Athens, 2 Apostoli str, Piraeus, Athens, 185 37, Greece. geogianno@hotmail.com
Nikolaos E Tzanakis
George E Rallis
Stamatis P Efstathiou
Christos Tsigris
Nikolaos I Nikiteas

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStaple line leaks represent a major concern in all laparoscopic operations but are particularly important in bariatric surgery, where leak complications carry significant morbidity and mortality. Therefore, several means of staple line reinforcement have been described, but none is totally accepted. In this study, we attempt to illuminate any clear benefit of staple line reinforcement through a systematic review and meta-analysis of reported articles.

methodsTwo major databases (PubMed and Cochrane) were searched and assessed by two reviewers. Inclusion criteria were: detailed description of operative technique, especially concerning staple line reinforcement, and possible existence of proven staple line leak. Selected studies were evaluated by systematic review and meta-analysis according to their eligibility. The study population was finally divided into two groups: reinforcement (of any type) and no reinforcement.

resultsIn the initial search, 126 studies were obtained. Then, 17 full papers, both randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs, were included in the systematic review. Seven studies, comprising 3,299 patients, were examined for evaluation of population odds of leak (7.69), which was considered clinically significant. Meta-analysis of three studies comprising 1,899 patients revealed no clear benefit of reinforcement group, though with marginal significance.

conclusionsAlthough several drawbacks exist, this study illustrates two important aspects: that current staplers may not be uniformly reliable, and that staple line reinforcement does not seem to have any clear benefit, at least concerning leak rate.

Indexed as

Bariatric SurgeryLaparoscopySurgical StaplingAnastomosis, SurgicalEndoleakHumansObesity, Morbid

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.