ArticleAnnals of coloproctology2024
New double-stapling technique without staple-crossing line in laparoscopic low anterior resection: effort to reduce anastomotic leakage.
Article in Annals of coloproctology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The application value of Da Vinci linear powered stapler SureForm in robotic sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer: a prospective randomized clinical trial.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Comparative perioperative outcomes of articulated versus conventional straight devices in laparoscopic low anterior resection: a propensity score-matched analysis.Annals of coloproctology · 2025Article
- The robotic intracorporeal single-stapled anastomosis (RiSSA) technique in robotic left-sided colorectal resection: a technical note.Annals of coloproctology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to demonstrate the safety of new double-stapling technique (nDST), without a crossing line and dog ears, by comparing with conventional DST (cDST) in laparoscopic low anterior resection (LAR).
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed 98 consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic LAR for rectal cancer from January 2018 to December 2020. The inclusion criterion was an anastomosis level below the peritoneal reflection and 4 cm above the anal verge. In the nDST group, the staple line of the linear cutter was sutured using barbed sutures to shorten the staple line before firing the circular stapler. Therefore, there were no crossing lines after firing the circular stapler. A 2:1 propensity score matching was performed between the cDST and nDST groups.
resultsAfter propensity score matching, 39 patients were in the cDST group and 20 were in the nDST group. There were no significant differences in patient demographics between the 2 groups. There was no difference in the total operation time between the cDST and nDST groups (124.0±26.2 minutes vs. 125.2±20.3 minutes, P=0.853). Morbidity rates were similar between the 2 groups (9 cases [23.1%] vs. 5 cases [25.0%], P=0.855). There was no significant difference in leakage rate (4 cases [10.3%] vs. 1 case [5.0%], P=0.847) and anastomotic bleeding rate (1 case [2.6%] vs. 3 cases [15.0%], P=0.211).
conclusionThe nDST to eliminate the crossing line and dog ears in laparoscopic LAR is technically feasible and safe. However, more attention should be paid to anastomotic bleeding in such cases.
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.