ArticleMedical devices (Auckland, N.Z.)2022
Comparison of Clinical Outcomes of Gripping Surface Technology Staple Reloads versus Standard Staple Reloads Used with Manual Linear Surgical Staplers.
Article in Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Comparison of the Preclinical Performance of the Echelon™+ Stapler with Thunderbird Reloads to Two Commercial Endoscopic Surgical Staplers.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Linear surgical staplers reduce rates of surgical adverse events (bleeding, leaks, infections) compared to manual sutures thereby reducing patient risks, surgeon workflow disruption, and healthcare costs. However, further improvements are needed. Ethicon Gripping Surface Technology (GST) reloads, tested and approved by regulatory authorities in combination with powered staplers, may reduce surgical risks through improved tissue grip. While manual staplers are used in some regions due to affordability, clinical data on GST reloads used with manual staplers are unavailable. This study compared surgical adverse event rates of manual staplers with GST vs standard reloads. These data may be used for label changes in China and Latin America. Patients and Methods: Patients undergoing general or thoracic surgery between October 1, 2015 and August 31, 2021 using ECHELON FLEX™ manual staplers with GST or standard reloads were identified from the Premier Healthcare Database. GST reloads were compared to standard reloads for non-inferiority in bleeding and anastomotic leak for general surgery. Secondary outcomes included sepsis for general surgery, and bleeding and prolonged air leak for thoracic surgery. Covariate balancing was performed using stable balancing weights. Results: The general and thoracic surgery cohorts contained 4571 (GST: 2780; standard: 1791) and 814 (GST: 514; standard: 300) patients, respectively. GST reloads were non-inferior to standard reloads for bleeding and anastomotic leak (adjusted cumulative incidence ratio: 1.02 [90% CI: 0.71, 1.45] and 1.03 [90% CI: 0.72, 1.46], respectively) for general surgery. Compared with standard reloads, GST reloads had a similar incidence of sepsis (2.2% vs 2.1%) for general surgery and lower incidences of bleeding (9.5% vs 16.0%) and prolonged air leak (12.6% vs 14.0%,) for thoracic surgery. Conclusion: GST reloads, compared to standard reloads, used with ECHELON FLEX™ manual staplers had comparable perioperative bleeding and anastomotic leak for general surgery, and lower incidences of safety events for thoracic surgery.
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.