ReviewCureus2026
Magnet-Assisted Anastomosis in Gastrointestinal Surgery: Current Evidence, Technical Considerations, and Barriers to Clinical Adoption.
Review in Cureus, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Gastrointestinal (GI) anastomosis remains a cornerstone of abdominal surgery; however, anastomotic failure continues to represent a significant source of postoperative morbidity, mortality, and healthcare burden despite advances in suturing, stapling, and minimally invasive techniques. Magnet-assisted anastomosis (MAA) has recently re-emerged as an investigational, sutureless technique that utilizes sustained magnetic compression to induce localized ischemia, tissue necrosis, and subsequent biologic fusion of adjacent luminal surfaces without leaving permanent foreign material. Although early reports have demonstrated technical feasibility across select gastrointestinal, bariatric, and pediatric applications, the clinical evidence supporting MAA remains limited, heterogeneous, and largely confined to experimental studies and small clinical series. This qualitative narrative review critically synthesizes the available preclinical and early clinical literature to examine the mechanistic basis of MAA, current technical approaches, early feasibility outcomes, and the practical limitations that currently constrain broader clinical adoption. Particular attention is given to perioperative considerations unique to delayed anastomotic formation, including nutritional management, timing of luminal patency, device-related complications, and postoperative monitoring strategies. While preliminary studies report high technical success rates and successful formation of patent anastomoses in carefully selected patients, the existing literature remains constrained by small sample sizes, heterogeneous study designs, and limited long-term follow-up. Key questions regarding long-term durability, stricture formation, comparative leak risk, and standardized patient selection remain incompletely defined. By synthesizing the fragmented body of evidence on MAA, this review aims to clarify the current state of the field, identify critical knowledge gaps, and outline the research priorities needed to determine whether MAA can play a meaningful role in future gastrointestinal surgical practice.
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.