ArticleBMC surgery2025
A comparative clinical outcome study of power-assisted vs. manually-operated circular staplers for deep colorectal anastomosis.
Article in BMC surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe objective of this study is to compare the perioperative clinical outcomes between power-assisted circular staplers (PCS) and manually-operated circular staplers (MCS) with directional stapling technology (DST) for deep colorectal anastomoses. MATERIALS AND
methodsA retrospective analysis of a prospective database of 64 consecutive patients who underwent elective surgery for low colorectal anastomosis (< 7 cm from the anal verge) between February 2020 and December 2022 at a tertiary referral center for colorectal surgery at the University Hospital of Tours, France. Patients were divided into two groups according to the stapler used: PCS group II; (n = 35) and MCS (group I; n = 29). Data collected included demographic characteristics, intraoperative parameters, postoperative complications (Dindo-Clavien), and oncological outcomes.
resultsThe PCS group had significantly lower overall rates of postoperative complications compared to the MCS group (31.4% vs. 62%, p = 0.022). In particular, anastomotic bleeding (AB) was less frequent in the PCS group (0% vs. 17.2%, p = 0.015). While no significant differences in recurrence or survival events were observed between groups during follow-up, the PCS group demonstrated a lower incidence of symptomatic anastomotic leaks (8.6% vs.13.6%, p = 0.069) and postoperative ileus (0% vs. 20.7%, p = 0.025).
conclusionIn our study, the use of PCS for deep rectal anastomosis was associated with a significantly lower overall postoperative complication rate, rate of symptomatic anastomotic leackage (AL) and AB. Our data support the potential preferential use of PCS in clinical practice. However, larger prospective randomized trials should be conducted to further investigate the potential clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness of using PCS in selected patient 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.