ArticleUpdates in surgery2026
Trends and incidence of reported events associated with staplers: an analysis of the food and drug administration's manufacturer and user facility device experience database.
Article in Updates in surgery, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To summarize medical device reports (MDRs) between 2012 and 2022 relating to staplers within the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database maintained by The Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The MAUDE database was analysed for all MDRs relating to each FDA-approved stapler for the last ten years. Event descriptions were reviewed and characterized into specific event types for all the different manufacturers. All data is de-identified and in compliance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). No further data was available in the database. Pooled Relative risk was used to compare data. Overall, 712 reports were retrieved in 10 years. In all, 413/712 (58%) were reported as malfunction of the device while 292/712 (41%) as injury. The most frequently reported adverse events (AEs) were Misfire (111/712: 15.6%), Failure to form staple (92/712: 12.9%), Mechanical jam (76/712: 10.7%) and Failure to fire (72/712: 10.1%). In terms of manufacturer: 401/712 (56%) were Covidien, 172/712 (24%) were Teleflex Medical and 139/712 (19.5%) were Ethicon Instruments. When comparing on disproportional analysis the different manufacturers, Teleflex medical's staplers were safer in terms of failure to fire and failure to form staple and Covidien showed the safest profile for misfire and along with Ethicon for mechanical jam. According to MAUDE database the most frequent complications related to staplers are misfire, failure to form staple, mechanical jam and failure to fire and the reported adverse events vary among the different manufacturers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41555122What 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.