Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39904790›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2025

Small bowel magnetic compression anastomosis creation for bypass procedures in a porcine model.

Oscar A Olavarria, Karan R Chhabra, Shoshana T Levi, Erik B Wilson, Matthew M Hutter

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Oscar A OlavarriaDepartment of Surgery, McGovern Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center Houston, 6431 Fannin St, MSB 4.162B, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. oolavarriak@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0001-8731-5395
Karan R ChhabraDepartment of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA.
Shoshana T LeviDepartment of Surgical Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas Health Science Center Houston, Houston, USA.
Erik B WilsonDepartment of Surgery, McGovern Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center Houston, 6431 Fannin St, MSB 4.162B, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
Matthew M HutterDepartment of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStapled and hand-sewn techniques dominate gastrointestinal anastomotic procedures. These techniques are effective but not without flaws. Retained foreign bodies, pathways from mucosa to serosa, and increased scar tissue are some of the drawbacks, and can lead to postoperative complications. The GI Windows Flexagon™ system utilizes self-forming magnets (SFM's) to create anastomoses by compression, sealing serosa to serosa, leaving no foreign bodies. Combining the Flexagon™ SFM with the OTOLoc™ device (implant with a central lumen which provides radial support to the enterotomies), enables immediate flow through the anastomosis and facilitates creation of enteral bypass procedures unique to this technology. We sought to compare the safety and efficacy of the GI Windows Flexagon™ and OTOLoc™ technologies against conventional stapling.

methodsA preclinical study was conducted on 14 Yorkshire swine to compare laparoscopic magnetic and stapled duodenoileostomies and jejunojejunostomies. Study endpoints included: adverse or serious adverse events, anastomotic burst pressure, adhesions, histopathology, and bacterial ingress. A Likert scale was used to assess the usability of the devices.

resultsAll procedures were successfully completed via laparoscopic approach; no adverse or serious adverse events were observed at the 42-day endpoint. All SFM's were expelled in less than 20 days. Average anastomotic burst pressure was 129.2 mmHg for SFM compared to 79.4 mmHg in stapled controls. Adhesion scores were similar between groups. Histopathology revealed that magnetic anastomoses have less intestinal wall distortion, fewer signs of chronic inflammation, and no bacterial ingress. The usability of all devices was reported as "Easy" or "Very Easy."

conclusionGI Windows magnetic compression anastomoses creation in this porcine model revealed an overall ease of use, all while demonstrating procedural feasibility, safety, and clinical effectiveness. Surprisingly, in nearly all results assessed, SFM anastomoses were found to be comparable to the control stapled anastomoses in regard to structural, physiological, and histological endpoints.

Indexed as

DuodenumIntestine, SmallJejunostomyLaparoscopyMagneticsMagnetsAnastomosis, SurgicalAnimalsFemaleModels, AnimalSurgical StaplingSwineMagnetic anastomosisMagnetic compression deviceSelf-forming magnetsSmall bowel anastomosisStaple free anastomosisSutureless anastomosis

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.