SynthesisInternational journal of colorectal disease2025
Current evidence on powered versus manual circular staplers in colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in International journal of colorectal disease, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The impact of the number of stapler firings on anastomotic leakage in minimally invasive rectal surgery: risk factor or technical marker of complexity? A systematic review, meta‑analysis, and metaregression.Techniques in coloproctology · 2026Pooled it
- Impact of powered circular stapling devices on anastomotic leakage rates in colorectal surgery.International journal of colorectal disease · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis meta-analysis aims to evaluate the efficacy of powered circular staplers (PCS) compared to manual circular staplers (MCS) in reducing anastomotic leakage (AL) and postoperative bleeding (AB) in colorectal surgery.
methodsExtensive searches were performed in the Embase, PubMed, and SCOPUS electronic bibliographic databases. Most studies were of an observational nature, and only one randomized clinical trial was identified.
resultsTwelve studies met the inclusion criteria for anastomotic leakage and five for anastomotic hemorrhage. The number of patients included for AL analysis was 4524. The leakage rate was 4.6% (208 cases). The number of patients with AB was 2868 with a bleeding rate of 4.99% (143 patients). After identifying outliers and studies with possible selection bias, the odds ratio (OR) for leaks and PCS was 0.38 (95% CI 0.26-0.55), the relative risk was - 0.05 (95% CI - 0.07 to 0.03), and the number needed to treat to prevent one leak was 20. For bleeding, the PCS OR for PCS was 0.20 (95% CI 0.0772-0.5177).
conclusionPowered circular staplers could be associated with a significantly lower risk of leakage and anastomotic bleeding than two-row manual circular staplers. Further prospective randomized trials are needed to validate these findings.
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.