SynthesisInternational journal of colorectal disease2024
Two-row, three-row or powered circular stapler, which to choose when performing colorectal anastomosis? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in International journal of colorectal disease, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Current evidence on powered versus manual circular staplers in colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of colorectal disease · 2025Pooled it
- Circular stapler platform and the risk of anastomotic leakage after elective left colectomy and high anterior resection.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2026Observational
- Article
- A comparative clinical outcome study of power-assisted vs. manually-operated circular staplers for deep colorectal anastomosis.BMC surgery · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThree types of circular staplers can be used to perform a colorectal anastomosis: two-row (MCS), three-row (TRCS) and powered (PCS) devices. The objective of this meta-analysis has been to provide the existing evidence on which of these circular staplers would have a lower risk of presenting a leak (AL) and/or anastomotic bleeding (AB).
methodsAn in-depth search was carried out in the electronic bibliographic databases Embase, PubMed and SCOPUS. Observational studies were included, since randomized clinical trials comparing circular staplers were not found.
resultsIn the case of AL, seven studies met the inclusion criteria in the PCS group and four in the TRCS group. In the case of AB, only four studies could be included in the analysis in the PCS group. The AL OR reported for PCS was 0.402 (95%-confidence interval (95%-CI): 0.266-0.608) and for AB: 0.2 (95% CI: 0.08-0.52). The OR obtained for AL in TRCS was 0.446 (95%-CI: 0.217 to 0.916). Risk difference for AL in PCS was - 0.06 (95% CI: - 0.07 to - 0.04) and in TRCS was - 0.04 (95%-CI: - 0.08 to - 0.01). Subgroup analysis did not report significant differences between groups. On the other hand, the AB OR obtained for PCS was 0.2 (95% CI: 0.08-0.52). In this case, no significant differences were observed in subgroup analysis.
conclusionPCS presented a significantly lower risk of leakage and anastomotic bleeding while TRCS only demonstrated a risk reduction in AL. Risk difference of AL was superior in the PCS than in TRCS.
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.