Trial reportInternational journal of colorectal disease2012
Randomised multicentre trial of circular stapling devices.
Trial report in International journal of colorectal disease, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00399009 (Comparative Study of Circular Stapling Instruments Concerning the Risk of Anastomotic Dehiscence After Anterior Resection for Rectal Cancer.), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Comparative Study of Circular Stapling Instruments Concerning the Risk of Anastomotic Dehiscence After Anterior Resection for Rectal Cancer.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIn a register study, the risk of anastomotic leakage correlated to the choice of circular stapling device with a 4% difference between the two brands used. Based on those data, a randomised multicentre study was started to explore the risk of an anastomotic leakage based upon the surgical device.
methodsPatients above 18 years with a rectal cancer, able to give informed consent, and scheduled for an anterior resection were eligible for the study. Perioperative randomisation was to Ethicon™ PROXIMATE™ ILS™ or Autosuture™ Premium Plus CEEA™. Anastomotic leakage was defined as a clinically manifest leak.
resultsFive hundred twenty-nine patients were randomised (58% male). A leak occurred in 8.3%. The anastomoses created by PROXIMATE™ ILS™ leaked in 25/265 (9.4%) anastomoses, and the Premium Plus CEEA™ leaked in 19/260 (7.3%), p = .419.
conclusionNo difference in the leak rate could be revealed. Several centres replaced one of the staplers by a new product, and the study was ended before the stipulated number of patients was reached. In the future, surgical devices may have to prove superiority in randomised trials or be monitored in quality registers before they can be introduced into day to day surgical practice. The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00399009.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21909698What 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.