ArticleAnnals of coloproctology2026
Linear versus circular stapler for colorectal anastomosis in laparoscopic sigmoidectomy: a retrospective comparative study.
Article in Annals of coloproctology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe choice between linear side-to-side and circular end-to-end staplers for colorectal anastomosis after laparoscopic sigmoidectomy remains a topic of debate. This study compared intraoperative efficiency, postoperative recovery, complications, and quality of life (QoL) between the 2 techniques.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included 83 patients who underwent elective laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for sigmoid cancer at a single center between January 2023 and August 2024. Patients were grouped according to the stapling technique used for anastomosis (linear stapler, n=23; circular stapler, n=60). Intraoperative characteristics, including operative time and stapler use; postoperative outcomes, including length of hospital stay and complications; and longitudinal QoL, assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire-Colorectal Cancer (QLQ-CR29) questionnaire at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months, were analyzed.
resultsBaseline characteristics were comparable between groups. Operative time did not differ significantly between the linear and circular stapler groups (90.73±14.02 minutes vs. 94.63±13.65 minutes, P=0.25). The linear stapler group required more staplers overall (3.04±0.82 vs. 1.53±0.72, P<0.001) but had a shorter hospital stay (10.09±1.83 days vs. 11.70±3.62 days, P=0.04). Oncologic outcomes and complication rates were low and comparable (anastomotic leakage: 4.3% vs. 0%, P=0.277). At 12 months, QoL scores did not differ significantly between groups, although descriptive trends suggested faster recovery of bowel function and abdominal pain in the linear stapler group during the first 6 months.
conclusionIn this single-center retrospective series, both linear side-to-side and circular end-to-end stapling techniques appeared safe, feasible, and clinically acceptable. Circular stapling required fewer stapling devices intraoperatively, whereas linear stapling was associated with modestly shorter hospitalization and descriptively faster early functional recovery. These findings are hypothesis-generating and warrant prospective validation in larger, balanced cohorts to guide patient- and technique-specific surgical decision-making.
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.