Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32914268›Full record

ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2021

Impact of the novel powered circular stapler on risk of anastomotic leakage in colorectal anastomosis: a propensity score-matched study.

V Pla-Martí, J Martín-Arévalo, D Moro-Valdezate, S García-Botello, I Mora-Oliver, R Gadea-Mateo, C Cozar-Lozano, A Espí-Macías

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Surgical considerations for the "perfect" colorectal anastomosis.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2023
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

V Pla-MartíDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, University Clinic Hospital of Valencia, Av. Blasco Ibáñez, 17, 46010, Valencia, Spain. vplamarti@yahoo.es.ORCID 0000-0001-7644-8416
J Martín-ArévaloDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, University Clinic Hospital of Valencia, Av. Blasco Ibáñez, 17, 46010, Valencia, Spain.
D Moro-ValdezateDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, University Clinic Hospital of Valencia, Av. Blasco Ibáñez, 17, 46010, Valencia, Spain.
S García-BotelloDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, University Clinic Hospital of Valencia, Av. Blasco Ibáñez, 17, 46010, Valencia, Spain.
I Mora-OliverDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, University Clinic Hospital of Valencia, Av. Blasco Ibáñez, 17, 46010, Valencia, Spain.
R Gadea-MateoDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, University Clinic Hospital of Valencia, Av. Blasco Ibáñez, 17, 46010, Valencia, Spain.
C Cozar-LozanoDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, University Clinic Hospital of Valencia, Av. Blasco Ibáñez, 17, 46010, Valencia, Spain.
A Espí-MacíasDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, University Clinic Hospital of Valencia, Av. Blasco Ibáñez, 17, 46010, Valencia, Spain.
Hospital Clínico Universitario de Valencia · ESUniversitat de València · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSeveral risk factors for anastomotic leakage (AL) following colorectal surgery have been described. Improvement in devices for performing anastomosis is a modifiable factor that could reduce AL rates. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of technical improvements in the Echelon Circular™ powered stapler (ECPS) on the left-sided colorectal AL rate compared to current manual circular staplers (MCS).

methodsA cohort study was carried out on consecutive patients between January 2017 and February 2020 in whom left-sided stapled colorectal anastomosis above 5 cm from anal verge was performed. The primary end point was the risk of AL depending on the type of circular stapler used. The ECPS cases were matched to MCS cases by propensity score matching to obtain comparable groups of patients.

resultsTwo hundred seventy-nine patients met the inclusion criteria. A MCS anastomosis was performed in 218 patients and ECPS anastomosis in 61 (21.9%). Overall, AL was observed in 25 (9%) cases. Factors significantly associated with AL were American Society of Anesthesiologists score (p = 0.025) and type of circular stapler used (p = 0.021). After adjusting the cases with propensity score matching (119 cases MCS versus 60 ECPS), AL was observed in 14 (11.8%) patients in MCS group and in 1 (1.7%) patient in the ECPS group (p = 0.022). AL in the MCS group required reoperation in seven cases (5.8%), the remaining seven patients were treated conservatively. The patient in the ECSP group required an urgent Hartmann's procedure

conclusionsThe ECPS device could have a positive impact by reducing AL rates in left-sided colorectal anastomosis. Multicenter controlled trials are needed for stronger evidence to change practice.

Indexed as

Anastomotic LeakColorectal NeoplasmsAnastomosis, SurgicalCohort StudiesHumansPropensity ScoreSurgical StaplingAnastomotic leakColorectal anastomosisEchelon circular staplerPowered circular staplerSurgical stapler

Identifiers

PMID32914268
OpenAlexW3086893196

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.