ArticleAnnals of gastroenterological surgery2025
Comparative retrospective study on surgical outcomes of hand-sewn anastomosis versus stapling anastomosis for colectomy using a nationwide inpatient database in Japan with propensity score matching.
Article in Annals of gastroenterological surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07348146 (Hand-Sewn vs. Stapled Anastomosis in SADI-S), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Hand-Sewn vs. Stapled Anastomosis in SADI-S: A Prospective Randomized Trial of Early Postoperative Complications.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparative retrospective study on surgical outcomes of hand-sewn anastomosis versus stapling anastomosis for colectomy using a nationwide inpatient database in Japan with propensity score matching.Annals of gastroenterological 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Intestinal anastomosis is performed by two main methods: hand-sewn anastomosis (HA) and stapling anastomosis (SA). Studies on anastomosis are still being reported and are an ongoing area of interest. The aim of this study was to evaluate the characteristics of each by comparing them with description and statistical analysis using a nationwide inpatient database. Methods: We collected data for colon cancer patients who underwent colectomy between April 2014 and March 2022 using the Diagnosis Procedure Combination (DPC) database. In the descriptive analysis, we described the background of the study population and the number of each method. In the statistical analysis, we used propensity score matching to achieve balanced covariates and showed the results of the comparative study using risk ratios and risk differences. Results: A total of 232 155 cases were selected (HA group: 40 764; SA group: 191 391). SA was performed more frequently than HA during the study period, with the proportion of SA increasing over the last few years (~80% in 2015 and 85% in 2021). We obtained 40 760 pairs through propensity score matching. The comparison of postoperative events varied by outcome (reoperation: 517 [1.27%] vs 380 [0.93%]; risk ratio [RR]: 1.36 [95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19 to 1.55], endoscopic intestinal hemostasis: 17 [0.04%] vs 80 [0.20%]; RR: 0.21 [95% CI, 0.13 to 0.36]). Conclusion: SA is becoming more common in colectomy. The risk of reoperation could be higher in the HA group, while the risk of postoperative endoscopic intestinal hemostasis could be higher in the SA group.
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.