ArticleInternational journal of colorectal disease2026
Impact of powered circular stapling devices on anastomotic leakage rates in colorectal surgery.
Article in International journal of colorectal disease, 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
introductionAnastomotic leakage (AL) remains a severe complication after colorectal surgery, increasing morbidity and mortality. Powered circular staplers may influence anastomotic healing through standardised compression and power distribution. This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes of powered versus manual circular staplers for transanal anastomoses.
methodThis retrospective single-centre cohort study included consecutive patients undergoing colorectal resection with transanal circular anastomosis between January 2022 and June 2025. Primary endpoint was the incidence of AL according to stapler type. To ensure comparability between groups, propensity score matching was performed.
resultsAmong 333 patients, powered staplers were used in 69.1% and manual staplers in 30.9%. The overall AL rate was 15.0%. AL was significantly associated with higher BMI (28.1 vs. 26.6 kg/m²; p = .021), ASA ≥ 3 (64.0 vs. 46.0%; p = .019), diabetes mellitus (24.0 vs. 8.1%; p .001), open (34.0 vs. 19.1%) or converted surgeries (14.0 vs. 4.9%; p = .004) and greater intraoperative fluid administration (2548.1 vs. 2188.8 ml; p = .015). Most patients (72.1%) followed enhanced recovery concepts (FAST TRACK) with trend toward lower adherence in the AL cohort (n.s.). After propensity score matching, AL occurred in 9.7% following powered circular stapling and 11.8% following manual circular stapling (n.s.).
conclusionIn this cohort, powered stapling devices were not associated with lower anastomotic leakage rates compared with manual staplers for transanal circular anastomosis in patients managed under modern minimally invasive and FAST TRACK concepts.
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.