ArticleSurgical endoscopy2016
Multicenter prospective evaluation of a new articulating 5-mm endoscopic linear stapler.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Totally laparoscopic surgery for choledochal cysts with hand‑sewn Roux‑en‑Y reconstruction in a pediatric population.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2024Article
- A SAGES technology and value assessment and pediatric committee evaluation of mini-laparoscopic instrumentation.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Application of stapling devices in liver surgery: Current status and future prospects.World journal of gastroenterology · 2016Review
- A Single Institution Review of Initial Application of a 5-mm Stapler.Journal of laparoendoscopic & advanced surgical techniques. Part A · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a novel 5-mm laparoscopic linear stapler in clinical gastrointestinal surgical applications.
methodsA prospective, single-arm study with an open enrollment of subjects requiring stapling of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract was performed. The study endpoints were the number of complications and technical failures associated with the use of a novel stapler when compared to similar events with conventional staplers as described in the medical literature.
resultsSeven centers enrolled 160 subjects, 150 of which were followed up to at least 30 days postoperatively. Intraoperative success: In 423 deployments, there were two staple line leaks and five staple line bleeds, all of which were intraoperatively resolved. In addition, incomplete staple lines were noted as a result of user error (n = 15) or device-related issues (n = 22), all of which were immediately resolved and none of which resulted in a complication or a change of the surgical procedure. Late outcomes: A total of 13 surgical complications in 160 patients were related to a GI transection or anastomosis, 12 of which related to a hand-sewn anastomosis or use of other commercially available staplers. One event (1/153, 0.065 %) on POD 1, involving bleeding of the staple line, was felt to be related to the use of the new stapler.
conclusionThe study confirmed that the new device was user-friendly (9 % incidence of problems firing the device), reliable (3 % device failures) and safe (<1 % complication rate related to the stapler). Based on these results, it would seem that this new 5-mm stapler is a safe and effective alternative to standard 12-mm staplers.
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.