Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27554096›Full record

SynthesisTechniques in coloproctology2016

Compression versus hand-sewn and stapled anastomosis in colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

A A P Slesser, G Pellino, O Shariq, D Cocker, C Kontovounisios, S Rasheed, P P Tekkis

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Techniques in coloproctology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. The Colorectal Anastomosis: A Timeless Challenge.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2023
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Colorectal Anastomotic Techniques.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2022
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

A A P SlesserDivision of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.
G PellinoDivision of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.
O ShariqDepartment of Surgery, St Mary's Hospital, Imperial College London, London, UK.
D CockerDivision of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.
C KontovounisiosDivision of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.
S RasheedDivision of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.
P P TekkisDivision of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK. p.tekkis@imperial.ac.uk.
Imperial College London · GBRoyal Marsden Hospital · GBSt Mary's Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Anastomotic leaks are a feared complication of colorectal resections and novel techniques that have the potential to decrease them are still sought. This study aimed to compare the anastomotic leak rates in patients undergoing compression anastomoses versus hand-sewn or stapled anastomoses. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing outcomes of compression versus conventional (hand-sewn and stapled) colorectal anastomosis were collected from MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library. The quality of the RCTs and the potential risk of bias were assessed. Pooled odds ratios (OR) were calculated for categorical outcomes and weighted mean differences for continuous data. Ten RCTs were included, comprising 1969 patients (752 sutured, 225 stapled, and 992 compression anastomoses). Most used the biofragmentable anastomotic ring. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of anastomotic leak rates (OR 0.80, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.47, 1.37; p = 0.42), stricture (OR 0.54: 95 % CI 0.18, 1.64; p = 0.28) or mortality (OR 0.70; 95 % CI 0.39, 1.26; p = 0.24). Compression anastomosis was associated with an earlier return of bowel function: 1.02 (95 % CI 1.37, 0.66) days earlier (p < 0.001) and a shorter postoperative stay; 1.13 (95 % CI 1.52, 0.74) days shorter (p < 0.001), but significant heterogeneity among studies was observed. There was an increased risk of postoperative bowel obstruction in the compression group (OR 1.87; 95 % CI 1.07, 3.26; p = 0.03). There was no significant difference in wound-related and general complications, or length of surgery. Compression devices do not appear to provide an advantage over conventional techniques in fashioning colorectal anastomoses and are associated with an increased risk of bowel obstruction.

Indexed as

Compression BandagesSuture TechniquesAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAnastomosis, SurgicalAnastomotic LeakColonFemaleHumansLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAnastomotic leakComplicationCompression anastomosisMeta-analysisStricture

Identifiers

PMID27554096
OpenAlexW2511700865

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.