Trial reportWorld journal of surgery2011
Compression anastomosis revisited: prospective audit of short- and medium-term outcomes in 62 rectal anastomoses.
Trial report in World journal of surgery, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endoscopic magnetic compression stricturoplasty for congenital esophageal stenosis: A case report.World journal of clinical cases · 2022Article
- Efficacy and safety of a NiTi CAR 27 compression ring for end-to-end anastomosis compared with conventional staplers: A real-world analysis in Chinese colorectal cancer patients.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2016Article
- Niti CAR 27 Versus a Conventional End-to-End Anastomosis Stapler in a Laparoscopic Anterior Resection for Sigmoid Colon Cancer.Annals of coloproctology · 2014Article
- Anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection for rectal cancer: comparison of stapled versus compression anastomosis.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2013Article
- Compression anastomoses in colorectal surgery: a review.Techniques in coloproctology · 2012Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe ColonRing™ represents a further advancement in compression anastomosis by using superelastic materials. In contrast to other compression devices, its field of application is identical to circular staplers. Yet, limited data are available and there are no reports on the use of this compression device for anastomoses in the lower rectum and in diverted cases.
methodsBetween November 2008 and March 2010 a nonrandomized prospective study of patients undergoing colorectal resection was done.
resultsSixty-two patients (30 female) with a median age of 67 years (range = 23-87) underwent surgery for benign (35) and malignant (27) indications;the surgery was performed laparoscopically in 53 (85.5%) cases. There were no leaks or other major complications related to the compression anastomosis. One patient died from sepsis caused by a leak of a colonic J-pouch. Three of 12 (25%) patients after (ultra-)low anterior resection experienced pain caused by the presence of the ring. Of 53 undiverted patients, rings were passed spontaneously in 52 (98.1%). No spontaneous passage occurred in patients with a stoma. Their rings were removed transanally prior to stoma closure. After a median of 6 months, endoscopic follow-up was performed in 60 patients (96.8%). Two anastomotic stenoses were detected (3.3%).
conclusionConstruction of rectal anastomosis using this novel compression device is feasible and safe and appears to cause only few anastomotic strictures in the medium term. Discomfort or pain from the presence of the ring at anastomosis following (ultra-)low anterior resection can be observed in a relevant number of patients.
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.