SynthesisIn vivo (Athens, Greece)
A Meta-analysis of Powered Circular Stapler
Synthesis in In vivo (Athens, Greece). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Impact of powered circular stapling devices on anastomotic leakage rates in colorectal surgery.International journal of colorectal disease · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimThe anastomotic leakage rate of the double stapling technique anastomosis in colorectal surgery remains high at approximately 10%. The Echelon Circular™ powered stapler (ECPS) has been recently reported to reduce the risk of anastomotic leakage. A meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of ECPS to that of the manual circular stapler (MCS) in left-sided colorectal resections. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe searched publicly available literature databases for studies published between 2018 and August 2024. The following search terms were used: "powered circular stapler", "powered circular", "anastomosis", and "powered echelon". We analyzed several outcomes including anastomotic leakage, major anastomotic leakage, and anastomotic bleeding. A subgroup analysis was performed to analyze Japanese cases only.
resultsWe identified 9 papers reporting results that compared ECPS for left-sided colorectal resection with MCS. Our meta-analysis included 3,301 patients with colorectal anastomosis; 1,135 had undergone ECPS and 2,166 had undergone MCS. The overall anastomotic leakage rate was significantly lower in the ECPS group than in the MCS group (
conclusionECPS may significantly reduce the rate of anastomotic leakage in left-sided colorectal surgery compared to MCS in both the Western and Asian populations.
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.