ArticleUpdates in surgery2026
Hemopatch serosal reinforcement in right colectomy: transforming anastomotic leak patterns and severity compared to second-line suture technique-a 10-Year Retrospective Cohort Study of 352 patients.
Article in Updates in surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Anastomotic reinforcement in rectal surgery: a position statement from an expert panel of colorectal surgeons.Updates in surgery · 2026Article
- Long-Term Safety and Efficacy of Alginate-Based Serosal Reinforcement (SEAL-G/SEAL-G MIST) Following Colorectal Anastomosis: A Multicenter, Comparative and Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Anastomotic leakage remains a significant complication following colorectal surgery. This study evaluates safety and leak mitigation of Hemopatch serosal reinforcement compared to conventional suture reinforcement in patients undergoing right colectomy. This retrospective cohort study analyzed 352 consecutive patients who underwent elective right colectomy between January 2013 and December 2024. Outcomes were compared between Hemopatch reinforcement (n = 181) and standard suture reinforcement (n = 171). Primary outcomes included anastomotic leak rates categorized by International Study Group of Rectal Cancer (ISREC) classification. Overall leak rates were numerically lower with Hemopatch (3.9% vs 8.2%, p = 0.11), with significantly fewer clinically significant leaks requiring intervention (ISREC B + C: 1.1% vs 5.3%, p = 0.03). CT-confirmed leaks were significantly less frequent in the Hemopatch group (5.0% vs 13.5%, p < 0.01). No Hemopatch patients required relaparotomy for anastomotic leak compared to 28.6% in the standard group (p = 0.06). Multivariate analysis identified obesity as the strongest independent risk factor for anastomotic leak (OR = 29.697, p = 0.015). Hemopatch appears to be a viable alternative to traditional suture reinforcement in right colectomy, with comparable safety and a potential advantage in reducing clinically significant leaks. Rather than preventing all leaks, it may transform technical failures into more manageable outcomes with less severe clinical consequences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40847254What 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.