ArticleCureus2026
A Prospective Comparative Study Between Stapler and Handsewn Gastrointestinal Anastomosis.
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Technical considerations for minimally invasive resection and reconstruction of redundant sigmoid colon.Journal of surgical case reports · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionGastrointestinal (GI) anastomosis is a critical step in bowel surgery, and the choice between stapled and handsewn techniques remains debated. Differences in operative efficiency and recovery have been reported, but complication rates appear comparable. This study compared stapled and handsewn GI anastomosis with respect to operative time, postoperative recovery, and complications. MATERIALS AND
methodsA prospective observational comparative study was conducted over two years in a tertiary care center. A total of 52 patients undergoing GI anastomosis were included, with 26 in the handsewn group and 26 in the stapler group. Technique selection was surgeon-directed. Baseline demographic and clinical variables were recorded. Primary outcomes included anastomosis time, time to oral feeding, and hospital stay. Secondary outcomes included anastomotic leak, surgical site infection (SSI), wound dehiscence, morbidity, and mortality. Continuous variables were analyzed using an independent t-test and categorical variables using a Chi-square test, with p < 0.05 considered significant.
resultsBaseline characteristics were comparable between groups. Anastomosis configuration differed significantly, with side-to-side performed in 26 (100%) stapled versus five (19.2%) handsewn cases (p < 0.001). Anastomotic leak occurred in two (7.7%) handsewn and three (11.5%) stapled cases (p = 0.638). SSI was seen in eight (30.8%) versus six (23.1%) (p = 0.532), and wound dehiscence in three (11.5%) versus zero (0%) (p = 0.074). The mean anastomosis time was significantly lower with stapling (5.81 ± 4.21 vs 25.62 ± 5.29 minutes, p < 0.001). Oral feeding was started earlier (2.31 ± 0.74 vs 4.27 ± 0.67 days, p < 0.001), and hospital stay was shorter (9.50 ± 2.18 vs 12.38 ± 2.12 days, p < 0.001). No mortality occurred.
conclusionStapled anastomosis significantly improves operative efficiency and recovery while maintaining comparable complication rates.
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.