Trial reportSurgery today2019
End-to-end intestinal anastomosis using a novel biodegradable stent for laparoscopic colonic surgery: a multicenter study.
Trial report in Surgery today, 2019. 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison analysis of short-term outcomes between degradable stent placement and diverting ileostomy in mid-to-low rectal cancer: a retrospective cohort study.Updates in surgery · 2026Article
- Safety and feasibility of the KONO-S anastomosis technique with biodegradable stent in Crohn's disease: a pilot study.International journal of colorectal disease · 2025Article
- Clinical using of innovative biodegradable stent with extension sleeve in Ta_tme for low rectal cancer with high risk of anastomotic leakage.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Peroral traction-assisted natural orifice trans-anal flexible endoscopic rectosigmoidectomy followed by intracorporeal colorectal anastomosis in a live porcine model.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeOur animal studies have demonstrated the safety and feasibility of end-to-end intestinal anastomosis using a stent for laparoscopic colonic surgery. Therefore, we designed a non-inferiority trial to investigate the outcomes of stent anastomosis (SA) vs. those of conventional hand-sewn anastomosis (CA).
methodsA multicenter randomized controlled trial was conducted between December, 2016 and April, 2018. The primary outcome was the healing condition of the anastomoses, evaluated by endoscopy 6 months postoperatively. The secondary outcomes were the anastomotic completion time, anastomotic leak, intestinal obstruction, peritoneal effusion, and bleeding. Quality of life (QOL) was evaluated by questionnaires.
resultsThe subjects of this study were 60 patients, randomly divided into a SA group (n = 30) and a CA group (n = 30). There were no differences in anastomotic healing conditions (P = 1.00). The stent procedure was associated with a significantly shorter anastomosis time than the hand-sewn anastomosis (13.517 ± 4.281 vs. 20.333 ± 2.998 min, respectively; P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in anastomotic leakage, intestinal obstruction, peritoneal effusion, or bleeding between the groups. Questionnaires revealed almost no discrepancy between baseline QOL scores and those assessed 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24 weeks postoperatively in either group.
conclusionsIntestinal anastomosis with a stent is a non-inferior strategy for laparoscopic colonic surgery, which requires less time for the anastomosis.
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.