ArticleScientific reports2026
Assessment of reinforcing sutures of double-stapling anastomosis with manual and powered circular staplers in Porcine models.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Preventing anastomotic leakage (AL) is crucial in rectal surgery, and several surgical techniques have been proposed to reduce the risk and severity of AL. This study evaluated the burst pressure at the double-stapling anastomosis in a porcine model to provide evidence to support the clinical efficacy of powered circular staplers and anastomotic reinforcing sutures. An experimental study using an ex vivo porcine model was performed to measure burst pressure as an AL test. We compared four groups with and without the placement of reinforcing sutures at the anastomotic site in each model using a powered and manual circular stapler. Four models were created in each of the four groups, for a total of 16 porcine test models. Anastomotic reinforcing sutures with a powered circular stapler improved the burst pressure by approximately 8% (p = 0.996), whereas those performed using a manual circular stapler improved the burst pressure by approximately 45% (p = 0.403). The powered circular stapler with anastomotic reinforcing sutures (n = 4, 28.7 ± 2.3 mmHg) increased burst pressure by about 63% compared to manual circular stapler without anastomotic reinforcing sutures (n = 4, 17.6 ± 1.0 mmHg) (p = 0.048). Our study suggests that the intraluminal pressure at the double-stapling anastomotic site may be improved by using a powered circular stapler or by adding an anastomotic reinforcing suture.
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.