Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31192938›Full record

Trial reportMedicine2019

Uni-center, patient-blinded, randomized, 12-month, parallel group, noninferiority study to compare outcomes of 3-row vs 2-row circular staplers for colorectal anastomosis formation after low anterior resection for rectal cancer.

Nikita A Nekliudov, Petr V Tsarkov, Inna A Tulina

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyEquivalence TrialRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03910699 (Uni-center, Patient-blinded, Randomized, 12 Month, Parallel-group, Non-inferiority Study to Compare Outcomes of Three-row Versus Two-row Circular Staplers for Colorectal Anastomosis Formation After Low Anterior Resection for Rectal Cancer), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 31% 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.

NCT03910699 naunknown statusnot on this map

Uni-center, Patient-blinded, Randomized, 12 Month, Parallel-group, Non-inferiority Study to Compare Outcomes of Three-row Versus Two-row Circular Staplers for Colorectal Anastomosis Formation After Low Anterior Resection for Rectal Cancer

TypeinterventionalSponsorRussian Society of Colorectal SurgeonsRan2019 to 2020Enrolled154ConditionsAnastomotic Leak, Anastomotic Haemorrhage, Anastomotic Complication, Rectal NeoplasmsArmsThree-row circular stapler, Two-row circular stapler
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

3 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Nikita A NekliudovSechenov Biomedical Science and Technology Park, Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University.
Petr V TsarkovDepartment of Surgery, Faculty of Preventive Medicine, Clinic of Colorectal and Minimally Invasive Surgery, Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russian Federation.
Inna A TulinaDepartment of Surgery, Faculty of Preventive Medicine, Clinic of Colorectal and Minimally Invasive Surgery, Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russian Federation.
Sechenov University · RU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundColorectal anastomotic leakage (AL) is one of the most serious complications in rectal cancer surgery due to its negative impact on the overall as well as cancer-specific survival. Two-row stapling technique has become standard in low anterior resections (LARs), but has neither alleviated the morbidity, nor reduced the incidence of AL. This is the 1st study that aims to compare the success rate of new 3-row circular staplers compared to that of conventional 2-row staplers in a prospective, randomized clinical trial.

methodsThe THREESTAPLER trial (Clinical Trials NCT03910699) is a prospective, noninferiority, 2-armed, parallel-group, patient and outcomes assessor blinded study with a 1:1 allocation ratio. Colorectal anastomosis will be formed using Ethicon 29 mm Curved Intraluminal Stapler (CDH29A) in the active comparator group, and using Mirus Disposable Circular Stapler 3 Row 29 (MCS-29R3) in the experimental group. The hypothesis states that the incidence of AL in the 3-row stapler group is at least not higher than in the 2-row stapler group. Assuming there is a difference in success rate of 12% and noninferiority margin Δ = 5%, 154 patients will be required to achieve statistical significance. An interim analysis will be performed after recruitment of 20 patients per group to assess safety profile of 3-row circular staplers. The primary endpoint is the rate of AL, documented by imaging studies, assessed with Pearson Chi-squared test and Fisher exact test. The secondary outcomes include severity of AL (A, B, or C), anastomotic bleeding, postoperative complication rate graded with the Clavien-Dindo classification, reintervention rate, stapler dysfunction rate, complications of defunctioning stoma, overall and cancer-specific quality of life, assessed with short form (36) and quality-of-life questionnaire core 30 questionnaires, respectively, fecal incontinence assessed with Cleveland clinic incontinence score form, and manifestation of LAR syndrome. All patients will be monitored for 12 months following the LAR. DISCUSSION: This is the 1st prospective randomized trial to assess the safety profile of 3-row staplers for colorectal anastomosis after LAR for rectal cancer. It may provide evidence of feasibility of 3-row circular staplers in LAR with respect to short-term and long-term patient outcomes.

trial registrationNCT03910699 on 10 April 2019.

Indexed as

Anastomosis, SurgicalAnastomotic LeakColorectal NeoplasmsFemaleHumansIncidenceMalePostoperative ComplicationsProspective StudiesQuality of LifeStandard of CareSurgical StaplersSurgical StaplingSurvival AnalysisTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID31192938
PMCPMC6587660
OpenAlexW2949953680

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.