Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42675334›Full record

ArticleUpdates in surgery2026

Anastomotic reinforcement in rectal surgery: a position statement from an expert panel of colorectal surgeons.

Arcangelo Picciariello, Alfredo Annicchiarico, Rossella Melcarne, Donato Francesco Altomare, Alberto Arezzo, Paolo Pietro Bianchi, Marco Caricato, Massimo Carlini, Claudio Coco, Francesco Corcione and 11 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Updates in surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

21 authors.

Arcangelo PicciarielloDepartment of Experimental Medicine, University of Salento, Lecce, Italy. arcangelo.picciariello@unisalento.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6361-1111
Alfredo AnnicchiaricoDepartment of Surgery, Azienda Sanitaria Locale Di Parma, Vaio Hospital, Fidenza, Italy.
Rossella MelcarneDepartment of Translational and Precision Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy. rossella.melcarne@uniroma1.it.
Donato Francesco AltomareDipartimento di Medicina di Precisione e Rigenerativa e Polo Jonico (DiMePRE-J), Università degli Studi Aldo Moro di Bari, Bari, Italy.
Alberto ArezzoDepartment of Surgical Sciences, University of Torino, Turin, Italy.
Paolo Pietro BianchiDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Marco CaricatoUOC Chirurgia Colorettale, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico di Roma, Via Àlvaro del Portillo 200, 00128, Rome, Italy.
Massimo CarliniGeneral Surgery Unit, Department of General Surgery, S. Eugenio Hospital, Rome, Italy.
Claudio CocoGeneral Surgery 2 Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, 00168, Rome, Italy.
Francesco CorcioneClinica Mediterranea, Via Orazio, 2, 80122, Naples, Italy.
Paolo DelrioColorectal Surgical Oncology, Abdominal Oncology Department, Istituto Nazionale per lo Studio e la Cura dei Tumori, "Fondazione G. Pascale" IRCSS, Naples, Italy.
Gaetano LuglioColoproctology Unit, Department of Public Health, University of Naples "Federico II", Naples, Italy.
Marco MiloneDepartment of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, "Federico II" University of Naples, Via Pansini 5, 80131, Naples, Italy.
Massimiliano MistrangeloSurgical Science Department, Centre of Minimal Invasive Surgery, Città Della Salute E Della Scienza Hospital, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Corrado PedrazzaniUnit of General Surgery 1, CISMed - Centre for Medical Sciences, Trento University, Santa Chiara Hospital - APSS, Trento, Italy.
Daniela RegaColorectal Surgical Oncology, Abdominal Oncology Department, Istituto Nazionale per lo Studio e la Cura dei Tumori, "Fondazione G. Pascale" IRCSS, Naples, Italy.
Antonino SpinelliDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Via Rita Levi Montalcini 4, 20072, Pieve Emanuele, Milan, Italy.
Gaya SpolveratoGeneral Surgery 3, Department of Surgical, Oncological and Gastroenterological Sciences (DiSCOG), University of Padova, Padua, Italy.
Leonardo VincentiDeparment of Surgery, I.R.C.C.S. Saverio de Bellis, Castellana Grotte, Italy.
Massimo Giuseppe ViolaDepartment of General, Robotic, Oncologic Surgery, G. Panico Hospital, Tricase, LE, Italy.
Gianpiero GravanteDepartment of General Surgery, Azienda Sanitaria Locale ASL Lecce, Casarano, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Anastomotic leakage (AL) remains one of the most feared complications after rectal surgery for cancer, with stable incidence rates despite advances in surgical technique and perioperative care. Multiple anastomotic reinforcement strategies have been proposed, yet evidence remains heterogeneous and no clear consensus exists regarding their routine use. A structured expert position panel process was conducted. Eleven clinical scenarios based on AL risk factors and twenty thematic items addressing indications, devices, timing, contraindications, surgical approach, stoma use, costs, and expected outcomes were developed. A panel of experts evaluated each statement using a five-point Likert scale through a two-round process. Consensus was assessed using median scores and interquartile ranges (IQR). Consensus was not reached for most individual or combined preoperative risk factors. Most reinforcement techniques did not receive clear endorsement because of inconsistent and heterogeneous evidence. Strong agreement emerged regarding the central role of intraoperative assessment: tissue perfusion, mechanical tension, tissue quality, and unexpected technical difficulty were identified as key determinants. The panel agreed that reinforcement may still be appropriate in the presence of a diverting stoma, as diversion reduces clinical severity but does not prevent leakage or long-term sequelae. Surgical approach and material cost were not considered influent factors. This position statement highlights the lack of robust evidence supporting routine, indication-driven, or device-specific anastomotic reinforcement in rectal cancer surgery. The main shared recommendation was to base reinforcement on intraoperative surgical judgment, including tissue perfusion, tension, tissue quality, and unexpected technical difficulty.Keywords: anastomotic leakage, rectal cancer surgery, anastomotic reinforcement.

Identifiers

PMID42675334

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.