SynthesisInternational journal of colorectal disease2026
Technical overview and clinical outcomes of transabdominal strategies to eliminate or neutralize staple-line intersection during low anterior resection: a systematic review.
Synthesis 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo systematically classify and describe transabdominal surgical techniques designed to eliminate or neutralize staple-line intersection during low anterior resection (LAR), and to summarize their reported clinical outcomes.
methodsA systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines and registered in PROSPERO (CRD420261368367). Major databases were searched for studies describing transabdominal techniques aimed at eliminating or neutralizing staple-line intersection in colorectal anastomosis during LAR. Both modified double-stapling techniques (mDST) and abdominal single-stapled techniques (aSST) were included. Outcomes of interest included anastomotic leak (AL), use of protective stoma, and perioperative variables. Reported outcomes were descriptively summarized, and exploratory aggregated analyses were performed when appropriate.
resultsSeventeen studies (998 patients) were included. Ten studies (529 patients) evaluated mDST (suture-based: n = 192; invagination-based: n = 337), while seven studies (469 patients) assessed aSST. Reported AL rates remained low across both mDST subgroups (3.1% suture-based vs 3.9% invagination-based), with an aggregated rate of 3.6%. The aSST group showed a leak rate of 6.0%. Protective stomas were used in 6.2% of mDST and 33.1% of aSST. Neoadjuvant therapy was used in 20.7% of aSST and 11.9% of mDST. Considerable heterogeneity in study design, technique, and outcome reporting was observed.
conclusionsTransabdominal techniques that eliminate or neutralize staple-line intersection appear feasible and associated with low anastomotic leak rates. Modified DST techniques appear technically feasible and have been associated with low reported leak rates. However, owing to the heterogeneity of the available evidence, comparative findings should be considered exploratory.
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.