Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40200762›Full record

SynthesisBJS open2025

Circular staplers and anastomotic leakage in colorectal surgery: meta-analysis.

Claudio Fiorillo, Vincenzo Tondolo, Beatrice Biffoni, Elisabetta Gambaro, Chiara Lucinato, Davide De Sio, Sergio Alfieri, Giuseppe Quero

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BJS open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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 · 2026
    Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

8 authors.

Claudio FiorilloDigestive Surgery Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario 'Agostino Gemelli' IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Vincenzo TondoloDepartment of Translational Medicine and Surgery, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore di Roma, Rome, Italy.
Beatrice BiffoniDigestive Surgery Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario 'Agostino Gemelli' IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Elisabetta GambaroDigestive Surgery Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario 'Agostino Gemelli' IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Chiara LucinatoDigestive Surgery Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario 'Agostino Gemelli' IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Davide De SioDigestive Surgery Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario 'Agostino Gemelli' IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Sergio AlfieriDigestive Surgery Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario 'Agostino Gemelli' IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Giuseppe QueroDigestive Surgery Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario 'Agostino Gemelli' IRCCS, Rome, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAnastomotic leakage is a feared complication after colorectal resection. Recent advancements in surgical techniques, particularly the use of circular staplers, have aimed to improve postoperative outcomes. However, the optimal choice of circular stapler remains uncertain, with debate surrounding its impact on anastomotic leakage rates. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the impact of different circular stapler characteristics on anastomotic leakage occurrence after left colorectal resection.

methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases to identify studies on the correlation between circular staplers and anastomotic leakage occurrence were performed up to November 2023 (PROSPERO registration: CRD42024519036). The literature search was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines and performed using the following search terms: 'colorectal surgery', 'staplers', 'complications'. Only retrospective, cohort, prospective and randomized clinical trials on anastomotic leakage rate after left colorectal resection, including adult patients (over 18 years of age) and published in English were included. Exclusion criteria were articles with different designs, and studies including extra-colonic or right/transverse colon diseases. The quality assessment of the study was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa classification. The outcome of interest was the analysis of each staplers' characteristics including: diameter, number of rows, technology (manual versus powered) and anastomotic technique (single- versus double-stapling technique) on anastomotic leakage occurrence.

resultsTwenty-one retrospective studies were selected including 24 511 patients. A higher anastomotic leakage rate was documented for 31/33 mm stapler diameters compared with the 28/29 mm (OR -0.92, 95% c.i. -1.74 to -0.10; P = 0.02), while no significant difference was found between the 25 mm and 28/29 mm diameters (OR -0.46, 95% c.i. -1.39 to 0.46; P = 0.2). Similar anastomotic leakage rates were found for the two- and three-row circular stapler groups (OR -0.01, 95% c.i. -0.16 to 0.13; P = 0.85). Conversely, the powered technology related to a significantly lower rate of anastomotic leakage compared with the manual technology (OR -0.83, 95% c.i. -1.13 to -0.35; P < 0.001). Similarly, the single-stapling technique related to a lower rate of anastomotic leakage compared with the double-stapling technique (OR 0.79, 95% c.i. 0.33 to 1.25; P < 0.001).

conclusionThis study shows a higher anastomotic leakage rate for larger circular staplers and manual technology. Similarly, the single-stapling technique has advantages over the double-stapling technique, while the tri-staple technology does not appear to confer advantages on anastomotic leakage occurrence.

Indexed as

Anastomotic LeakSurgical StaplersSurgical StaplingAnastomosis, SurgicalColonHumans

Identifiers

PMID40200762
PMCPMC11979101

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.