ArticleObesity surgery2018
Initial Assessment of Mucosal Capture and Leak Pressure After Gastrointestinal Stapling in a Porcine Model.
Article in Obesity surgery, 2018. 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.
- Prospective Randomized Comparison of Linear Endostaplers During Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy.Obesity surgery · 2022Trial
- Intestinal mucosa staple line integrity and anastomotic leak pressure after healing in a porcine model.Surgery today · 2021Article
- The Impact of Endoscopic Stapler Selection on Bleeding at the Vascular Stump in Pulmonary Artery Transection.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2020Article
- Does Intestinal Peristalsis Cause Suture Failure After Instrument Suture?In vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAnastomotic leak is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in gastrointestinal surgery. The serosal aspect of staple lines is commonly observed for integrity, but the mucosal surface and state of mucosa after firing is less often inspected. We sought to assess the degree of mucosal capture when using stapling devices and determine whether incomplete capture influences staple line integrity.
methodsPorcine ileum was transected in vivo and staple lines were collected and rated for degree of mucosal capture on a 5-point scale from 1 (mucosa mainly captured on both sides) to 5 (majority of mucosa not captured). Mucosal capture was also assessed in ex vivo staple lines, and fluid leakage pressure and location of first leak was assessed. Stapling devices studied were Echelon Flex GST with 60-mm blue (GST60B) and green (GST60G) cartridges, and Medtronic EndoGIA Universal with Tri-Staple Technology™ with 60 mm medium (EGIA60AMT) reloads (purple).
resultsGST60B and GST60G staple lines produced significantly better mucosal capture scores than the EGIA60AMT staple lines (p < 0.001, in all tests). Compared to EGIA60AMT, leak pressures were 39% higher for GST60B (p < 0.001) and 23% higher for GST60G (p = 0.022). Initial staple line leak site was associated with incomplete mucosal capture 78% of the time.
conclusionsThere are differences in degree of mucosal capture between commercial staplers, and the devices that produce better mucosal capture had significantly higher leak pressures. Further research is needed to determine the significance of these findings on staple line healing throughout the postoperative period.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29956107What 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.