ArticleSurgical endoscopy2018
Does advancement in stapling technology with triple-row and enhanced staple configurations confer additional safety? A matched comparison of 340 stapled ileocolic anastomoses.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Stapled versus handsewn closure of enterotomy for intracorporeal overlap anastomosis in laparoscopic colectomy: in vitro study.Techniques in coloproctology · 2025Article
- Enhancing the precision of circular stapled colorectal anastomosis: could powered stapler technology provide the solution?Techniques in coloproctology · 2019Article
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
backgroundOver the past few decades, studies have focused on the safety of stapled anastomosis, especially when compared to that of the handsewn technique. However, studies on the improvement of stapling technology are limited. This study aimed to investigate whether linear triple-row staples (tri-staples) had any advantage over double-row staples.
methodsThis is a retrospective review of all cases of functional end-to-end anastomoses with linear staplers performed at two centers between 2005 and 2015. Data were retrieved from a prospectively maintained database. Cases of anastomoses performed with double-row (DS) and triple-row (TS) staples were matched according to propensity scores. The rates of anastomotic leakage, bleeding, reoperation, and 30-day mortality were compared.
resultsFunctional end-to-end ileocolic anastomoses were performed in 563 consecutive patients during the study period. Double- and triple-row stapling devices were used in 389 and 174 anastomoses, respectively. With propensity score matching, 170 cases were chosen from each group. Both groups showed comparable baseline characteristics. The anastomotic leakage, anastomotic bleeding, and intra-abdominal collection rates were 2.4 and 0% (p = 0.123), 1.2 and 0% (p = 0.499), and 3.5 and 1.2% (p = 0.283) for DS and TS, respectively. The reoperation and 30-day mortality rates were 5.9 and 1.8% (p = 0.048) and 0.6 and 1.2% (p = 1.000) for DS and TS, respectively. The median lengths of stay were 5 and 6 days (p = 0.072) for DS and TS, respectively.
conclusionAnastomoses with triple-row staples tended to have a lower morbidity rate, but a significant advantage over double-row staples was not demonstrated in this study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29340808What 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.