SynthesisInternational journal of colorectal disease2023
Surgical approaches to colonic and rectal anastomosis: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in International journal of colorectal disease, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Technical considerations for minimally invasive resection and reconstruction of redundant sigmoid colon.Journal of surgical case reports · 2026Article
- Understanding Anastomotic Healing in Colo-Rectal Surgery; a Multicentric 5-Year Analysis of Predictive Factors for Integrity and Fistula Formation.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Anastomotic Leak Following Colorectal Surgery.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2026Review
- Evaluation of Transfer Learning Efficacy for Surgical Suture Quality Classification on Limited Datasets.Journal of imaging · 2025Article
- Article
- Biodegradable high-nitrogen iron alloy anastomotic staples:Bioactive materials · 2024Article
- Initial safety and efficacy of a novel drug-coated balloon for treatment of benign intestinal strictures.iGIE : innovation, investigation and insights · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposePostoperative complications after a colonic and rectal surgery are of significant concern to the surgical community. Although there are different techniques to perform anastomosis (i.e., handsewn, stapled, or compression), there is still no consensus on which technique provides the least number of postoperative problems. The objective of this study is to compare the different anastomotic techniques regarding the occurrence or duration of postoperative outcomes such as anastomotic dehiscence, mortality, reoperation, bleeding and stricture (as primary outcomes), and wound infection, intra-abdominal abscess, duration of surgery, and hospital stay (as secondary outcomes).
methodsClinical trials published between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2021, reporting anastomotic complications with any of the anastomotic technique were identified using the MEDLINE database. Only articles that clearly defined the anastomotic technique used, and report at least two of the outcomes defined were included.
resultsThis meta-analysis included 16 studies whose differences were related to the need of reoperation (p < 0.01) and the duration of surgery (p = 0.02), while for the anastomotic dehiscence, mortality, bleeding, stricture, wound infection, intra-abdominal abscess, and hospital stay, no significant differences were found. Compression anastomosis reported the lowest reoperation rate (3.64%) and the handsewn anastomosis the highest (9.49%). Despite this, more time to perform the surgery was required in compression anastomosis (183.47 min), with the handsewn being the fastest technique (139.92 min).
conclusionsThe evidence found was not sufficient to demonstrate which technique is most suitable to perform colonic and rectal anastomosis, since the postoperative complications were similar between the handsewn, stapled, or compression techniques.
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.