Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41801348›Full record

SynthesisEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2026

Stapler versus manual closure for pharyngeal repair after total laryngectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Noof Albannai, Munawer Alsaeed, Yaqoub Yousef Alenezi, Bander M Alshammari, Nawaf Almotairi, Noora Albuainain, Retaj Alawadhi, Abdullah M Alharran, Mishal Almutairi

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-AnalysisComparative Study
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Noof AlbannaiSchool of Medicine, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland. albannainouf@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-4113-9258
Munawer AlsaeedCollege of Medicine and Medical Sciences, Arabian Gulf University, Manama, Kingdom of Bahrain.
Yaqoub Yousef AleneziCollege of Medicine and Medical Sciences, Arabian Gulf University, Manama, Kingdom of Bahrain.
Bander M AlshammariCollege of Medicine and Medical Sciences, Arabian Gulf University, Manama, Kingdom of Bahrain.
Nawaf AlmotairiOtorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Kuwait Institute for Medical Specializations (KIMS), Kuwait City, Kuwait.
Noora AlbuainainCollege of Medicine and Medical Sciences, Arabian Gulf University, Manama, Kingdom of Bahrain.
Retaj AlawadhiOtorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Kuwait Institute for Medical Specializations (KIMS), Kuwait City, Kuwait.
Abdullah M AlharranCollege of Medicine and Medical Sciences, Arabian Gulf University, Manama, Kingdom of Bahrain.
Mishal AlmutairiDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Farwania Hospital, Kuwait City, Kuwait.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPharyngeal closure is a critical step in total laryngectomy influencing postoperative recovery. While manual suturing is traditional, stapler-assisted closure offers potential advantages. This study provides an updated meta-analysis comparing stapler versus manual closure, stratifying by surgical indication, laryngectomy type and stapler technique. METHODOLOGY: Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic search of four databases, up to November 2025, was conducted. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing stapler versus manual closure in total laryngectomy were included. The primary outcome was pharyngocutaneous fistula (PCF) incidence. Secondary outcomes mainly included operative time and hospital stay. Risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a random-effects model.

resultsTwenty studies (4 RCTs, 16 observational) involving 1,545 patients were included. Stapler closure was associated with a significantly lower risk of PCF (RR = 0.54, 95% CI [0.38, 0.76], p < 0.001), shorter operative time (MD = -52.60, 95% CI [-74.33, -30.86], p < 0.001), and reduced hospital stay (MD = -3.62, 95% CI [-5.49, -1.76], p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis demonstrated a significant PCF reduction in primary laryngectomy (RR = 0.40, 95% CI [0.24, 0.69], p > 0.001), but this benefit was not statistically significant in salvage laryngectomy alone. Closed and semi-closed stapler techniques showed the most significant protective effects.

conclusionStapler-assisted pharyngeal closure significantly reduces PCF incidence, operative time, and hospitalization compared to manual suturing in primary laryngectomy. While efficient, its superiority in preventing PCF in high-risk salvage settings is not established, warranting careful patient selection.

Indexed as

LaryngectomyPharyngeal DiseasesPharynxPostoperative ComplicationsSurgical StaplersSurgical StaplingSuture TechniquesCutaneous FistulaHumansLength of StayManual SutureMeta-AnalysisPharyngeal RepairPharyngocutaneous FistulaStapler ClosureTotal Laryngectomy

Identifiers

PMID41801348
PMCPMC13388511

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.