ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2022
Circular vs. linear stapling after minimally invasive and robotic-assisted esophagectomy: a pooled analysis.
Article in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Experience with H anastomosis and its perioperative management protocol in minimally invasive esophagectomy: a propensity score-matched comparison with stapled non-enhanced recovery after surgery pathway.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Fully Robotic Side-to-Side Linear-Stapled Anastomosis During Robotic Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy.World journal of surgery · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeCurrent data states that most likely there are differences in postoperative complications regarding linear and circular stapling in open esophagectomy. This, however, has not yet been summarized and overviewed for minimally invasive esophagectomy, which is being performed increasingly.
methodsA pooled analysis was conducted, including 4 publications comparing linear and circular stapling techniques in minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE). Primary endpoints were anastomotic leakage, pulmonary complications, and mean hospital stay.
resultsSummarizing the 4 chosen publications, no difference in anastomotic insufficiency could be displayed (p = 0.34). Similar results were produced for postoperative pulmonary complications. Comparing circular stapling (CS) to linear stapling (LS) did not show a trend towards a favorable technique (p = 0.82). Some studies did not take learning curves into account. Postoperative anastomotic stricture was not specified to an extent that made a summary of the publications possible.
conclusionsIn conclusion, data is not sufficient to provide a differentiated recommendation towards mechanical stapling techniques for individual patients undergoing MIE and RAMIE. Therefore, further RCTs are necessary for the identification of potential differences between LS and CS. At this point in research, we therefore suggest evading towards choosing a single anastomotic technique for each center. Momentarily, enduring the learning curve of the surgeon has the greatest evidence in reducing postoperative complication rates.
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.