ArticleJournal of laparoendoscopic & advanced surgical techniques. Part A2016
A Single Institution Review of Initial Application of a 5-mm Stapler.
Article in Journal of laparoendoscopic & advanced surgical techniques. Part A, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- A SAGES technology and value assessment and pediatric committee evaluation of mini-laparoscopic instrumentation.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- [Minilaparoscopy with 5 mm optics and 3 mm trocars].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOperating in small spaces presents physical constraints that can be even more challenging in minimally invasive operations. Recently, a 5-mm stapler was approved for use in general surgery and pediatric surgery. Here, we present our initial experience using the 5-mm stapler in pediatric general surgery. MATERIALS AND
methodsA retrospective chart review was conducted to identify cases using the 5-mm stapler at our institution. Demographic data included age (in months) and weight (in kilograms). Operative data included indication for use, number of loads used, complications related to 5-mm stapler use, and interventions to address complications. A second review focused on patients undergoing the same operations, but using a 10-mm stapler.
resultsA total of 60 staple loads were deployed in 32 procedures. There were four adverse outcomes, all recognized intraoperatively. One bleed resulted from application on irradiated tissue and another bleed from application to a small noninflamed mesoappendix. A bronchial staple line leak resulted from improper stapler loading, and a bowel anastomosis leak was oversewn with a single stitch. When compared with 32 matched cases using a 10-mm stapler, there was no difference in age (5-mm = 39.11 months, 10-mm = 50.21 months, P = .49) or weight (5-mm = 16.34 kg, 10-mm = 19.93 kg, P = .51). A total of 60 staple applications were used, with one bleed noted. There was no significant difference in overall complication rate (5-mm rate = 4/60, 10-mm rate = 1/60; P = .36).
conclusionOur initial experience suggests that although there were more complications with the 5-mm stapler, there is no statistically significant difference in complication rates when compared with the 10-mm stapler. Furthermore, the 5-mm stapler complications can be corrected with device training and proper patient selection. In appropriately selected pediatric surgery cases with size limitations, the 5-mm stapler can be used to minimize the invasiveness of the operation.
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.