SynthesisBJS open2025
Circular staplers and anastomotic leakage in colorectal surgery: meta-analysis.
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.
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
9 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
- Anastomotic failure: the dance between microbial virulence, structure, and perfusion.The British journal of surgery · 2026Article
- 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 · 2026Observational
- Prevention and management of anastomotic leakage after colorectal resection: evolving trends among Italian surgeons. A SICCR survey.Updates in surgery · 2026Article
- Impact of powered circular stapling devices on anastomotic leakage rates in colorectal surgery.International journal of colorectal disease · 2026Article
- Assessment of reinforcing sutures of double-stapling anastomosis with manual and powered circular staplers in Porcine models.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Real-world outcomes following dehydrated human amnion/chorion membrane use in left-sided colectomy without a protective stoma: a multicenter pilot study.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Impact of Circular Stapler Diameter on Anastomotic Leakage in Left-Sided Colorectal Cancer: A Retrospective Single-Center Case-Control Analysis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Achieving the perfect end-to-end single-stapled anastomosis in low anterior resection for rectal cancer: technical aspects.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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.