ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2022
Clinical outcomes of pre-attached reinforced stapler reloads in thoracic surgery: a prospective case series.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Material Use for Air Leakage Prevention Post-Lung Resection: Insights from Real-World Data in Japan.Annals of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery : official journal of the Association of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeons of Asia · 2026Article
- Safety and efficacy of new staple-line reinforcement in lung resection: a prospective study of 48 patients.Surgery today · 2024Article
- Safety and usability of an endo staple line reinforcement device for pulmonary resections.Journal of thoracic disease · 2023Article
- The clinical effectiveness of staple line reinforcement with different matrix used in surgery.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Review
- Procedures to avoid postoperative prolonged air leak in thoracic surgery.Journal of thoracic disease · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Reinforced staple lines are less susceptible to leaks or bleeding and may consequently reduce morbidity and complications during or after surgery. However, their safety and benefits as well as the best form of reinforcement are still under debate. This study evaluates the safety of a stapler with pre-attached buttressing material based on adverse events (AEs) in thoracic surgery. Methods: A multi-center prospective study was conducted to assess the use of stapler reloads with pre-attached staple line reinforcement material in thoracic surgery. The primary endpoint was the rate of device-related AEs reported within 30 days of lung cancer thoracic surgery. AEs, bleeding ≥50 mL, leaks, and 30-day readmissions were reported as additional outcomes. Results: A total of 40 patients underwent lobectomy (n=22), wedge resection (n=10), or other thoracic surgery (n=8). Access was open (n=9) or by video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS, n=31). One patient was lost to follow-up. Intraoperatively, there were no cases of bleeding ≥50 mL requiring staple line intervention, and three cases (8%) experienced minor leaks that were treated conservatively. Bleeding unrelated to the staple line occurred in 20 patients intraoperatively (50%) and 21 patients postoperatively (54%). Three patients were readmitted (8%) for procedure-related causes and deemed unrelated to the investigational device. Of the AEs reported, one device-related event occurred intraoperatively, associated with minor bleeding. The other 33 AEs were related to infection (15%), bleeding (12%), or leak (9%). There were no deaths during the follow-up period. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that AEs related to the use of reinforced reloads and occurring during or within 30 days of lung cancer surgery pose minimal safety concerns.
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.