ArticleBMC surgery2023
Novel external reinforcement device for gastrointestinal anastomosis in an experimental study.
Article in BMC surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Microenvironment-Responsive Nanomaterials for Colorectal Anastomotic Healing: A Signal-Threshold-Response Framework for Stage-Adaptive Repair.International journal of nanomedicine · 2026Review
- Physical pressure resistance of gastrointestinal anastomotic site via plate of polyglycolic acid promoting fibrosis.Scientific reports · 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAnastomotic leakage has been reported to occur when the load on the anastomotic site exceeds the resistance created by sutures, staples, and early scars. It may be possible to avoid anastomotic leakage by covering and reinforcing the anastomotic site with a biocompatible material. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of a novel external reinforcement device for gastrointestinal anastomosis in an experimental model.
methodsA single pig was used in this non-survival study, and end-to-end anastomoses were created in six small bowel loops by a single-stapling technique using a circular stapler. Three of the six anastomoses were covered with a novel external reinforcement device. Air was injected, a pressure test of each anastomosis was performed, and the bursting pressure was measured.
resultsReinforcement of the anastomotic site with the device was successfully performed in all anastomoses. The bursting pressure was 76.1 ± 5.7 mmHg in the control group, and 126.8 ± 6.8 mmHg in the device group, respectively. The bursting pressure in the device group was significantly higher than that in the control group (p = 0.0006).
conclusionsThe novel external reinforcement device was safe and feasible for reinforcing the anastomoses in the experimental model.
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.