Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36222069›Full record

ArticleDiseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus2023

Real-life introduction of powered circular stapler for esophagogastric anastomosis: cohort and propensity matched score study.

Stijn Vanstraelen, Willy Coosemans, Lieven Depypere, Yannick Mandeville, Johnny Moons, Hans Van Veer, Philippe Nafteux

Erratum issuedOpen access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus, 2023. 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 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Stijn VanstraelenDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-8432-1685
Willy CoosemansDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Lieven DepypereDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-8230-5649
Yannick MandevilleDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Johnny MoonsDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0003-4553-3102
Hans Van VeerDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Philippe NafteuxDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-1145-4812
KU Leuven · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy is one of the most feared complications, which results in increased morbidity and mortality. Our aim was to evaluate the impact of a powered circular stapler on complications after esophagectomy with intrathoracic anastomosis for esophageal cancer. Between May 2019 and July 2021, all consecutive oesophagectomies for cancer with intrathoracic anastomosis in a high-volume center were included in this retrospective study. Surgeons were free to choose either a manual or a powered circular stapler. Preoperative characteristics and postoperative complications were recorded in a prospective database, according to EsoData. Propensity score matching (age, body mass index, Eastern cooperative oncology group (ECOG) performance and neoadjuvant therapy) was conducted to reduce potential confounding. We included 128 patients. Powered and manual circular staplers were used in 62 and 66 patients, respectively. Fewer anastomotic leakages were observed with the powered stapler group (OR = 7.3 (95%CI: 1.58-33.7); [3.2% (n = 2) vs 19.7% (n = 13), respectively; p = 0.004]). After propensity score matching, this remained statistically significant (OR = 8.5 (95%CI: 1.80-40.1); [4.1% (n = 2) vs 20.4% (n = 10), respectively; p = 0.013]). Additionally, anastomotic diameter was significantly higher with the powered stapler (median: 29 mm (63.3%) vs 25 mm (57.1%), respectively; p < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in comprehensive complication index (p = 0.146). A decreased mean length of stay was observed in the powered stapler group (11.1 vs 18.7 days respectively; p = 0.022). Postoperative anastomotic leakage after esophageal resection was significantly reduced after the introduction of the powered circular stapler, consequently resulting in a reduced length of stay. Further evaluation on long-term strictures and quality of life are warranted to support these results.

Indexed as

Anastomotic LeakEsophageal NeoplasmsAnastomosis, SurgicalEsophagectomyHumansPostoperative ComplicationsPropensity ScoreQuality of LifeRetrospective StudiesSurgical Staplersanastomotic leakageesophageal canceresophagectomypowered circular stapler

Identifiers

PMID36222069
PMCPMC10150171
OpenAlexW4304689787

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.