Circular staplers and anastomotic leakage in colorectal surgery: meta-analysis.

IF 3.5 3区 医学 Q1 SURGERY
BJS Open Pub Date : 2025-03-04 DOI:10.1093/bjsopen/zrae170
Claudio Fiorillo, Vincenzo Tondolo, Beatrice Biffoni, Elisabetta Gambaro, Chiara Lucinato, Davide De Sio, Sergio Alfieri, Giuseppe Quero
{"title":"Circular staplers and anastomotic leakage in colorectal surgery: meta-analysis.","authors":"Claudio Fiorillo, Vincenzo Tondolo, Beatrice Biffoni, Elisabetta Gambaro, Chiara Lucinato, Davide De Sio, Sergio Alfieri, Giuseppe Quero","doi":"10.1093/bjsopen/zrae170","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Anastomotic leakage is a feared complication after colorectal resection. Recent advancements in surgical techniques, particularly the use of circular staplers, have aimed to improve postoperative outcomes. However, the optimal choice of circular stapler remains uncertain, with debate surrounding its impact on anastomotic leakage rates. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the impact of different circular stapler characteristics on anastomotic leakage occurrence after left colorectal resection.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review and meta-analysis using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases to identify studies on the correlation between circular staplers and anastomotic leakage occurrence were performed up to November 2023 (PROSPERO registration: CRD42024519036). The literature search was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines and performed using the following search terms: 'colorectal surgery', 'staplers', 'complications'. Only retrospective, cohort, prospective and randomized clinical trials on anastomotic leakage rate after left colorectal resection, including adult patients (over 18 years of age) and published in English were included. Exclusion criteria were articles with different designs, and studies including extra-colonic or right/transverse colon diseases. The quality assessment of the study was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa classification. The outcome of interest was the analysis of each staplers' characteristics including: diameter, number of rows, technology (manual versus powered) and anastomotic technique (single- versus double-stapling technique) on anastomotic leakage occurrence.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-one retrospective studies were selected including 24 511 patients. A higher anastomotic leakage rate was documented for 31/33 mm stapler diameters compared with the 28/29 mm (OR -0.92, 95% c.i. -1.74 to -0.10; P = 0.02), while no significant difference was found between the 25 mm and 28/29 mm diameters (OR -0.46, 95% c.i. -1.39 to 0.46; P = 0.2). Similar anastomotic leakage rates were found for the two- and three-row circular stapler groups (OR -0.01, 95% c.i. -0.16 to 0.13; P = 0.85). Conversely, the powered technology related to a significantly lower rate of anastomotic leakage compared with the manual technology (OR -0.83, 95% c.i. -1.13 to -0.35; P < 0.001). Similarly, the single-stapling technique related to a lower rate of anastomotic leakage compared with the double-stapling technique (OR 0.79, 95% c.i. 0.33 to 1.25; P < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study shows a higher anastomotic leakage rate for larger circular staplers and manual technology. Similarly, the single-stapling technique has advantages over the double-stapling technique, while the tri-staple technology does not appear to confer advantages on anastomotic leakage occurrence.</p>","PeriodicalId":9028,"journal":{"name":"BJS Open","volume":"9 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11979101/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BJS Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsopen/zrae170","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Anastomotic leakage is a feared complication after colorectal resection. Recent advancements in surgical techniques, particularly the use of circular staplers, have aimed to improve postoperative outcomes. However, the optimal choice of circular stapler remains uncertain, with debate surrounding its impact on anastomotic leakage rates. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the impact of different circular stapler characteristics on anastomotic leakage occurrence after left colorectal resection.

Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases to identify studies on the correlation between circular staplers and anastomotic leakage occurrence were performed up to November 2023 (PROSPERO registration: CRD42024519036). The literature search was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines and performed using the following search terms: 'colorectal surgery', 'staplers', 'complications'. Only retrospective, cohort, prospective and randomized clinical trials on anastomotic leakage rate after left colorectal resection, including adult patients (over 18 years of age) and published in English were included. Exclusion criteria were articles with different designs, and studies including extra-colonic or right/transverse colon diseases. The quality assessment of the study was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa classification. The outcome of interest was the analysis of each staplers' characteristics including: diameter, number of rows, technology (manual versus powered) and anastomotic technique (single- versus double-stapling technique) on anastomotic leakage occurrence.

Results: Twenty-one retrospective studies were selected including 24 511 patients. A higher anastomotic leakage rate was documented for 31/33 mm stapler diameters compared with the 28/29 mm (OR -0.92, 95% c.i. -1.74 to -0.10; P = 0.02), while no significant difference was found between the 25 mm and 28/29 mm diameters (OR -0.46, 95% c.i. -1.39 to 0.46; P = 0.2). Similar anastomotic leakage rates were found for the two- and three-row circular stapler groups (OR -0.01, 95% c.i. -0.16 to 0.13; P = 0.85). Conversely, the powered technology related to a significantly lower rate of anastomotic leakage compared with the manual technology (OR -0.83, 95% c.i. -1.13 to -0.35; P < 0.001). Similarly, the single-stapling technique related to a lower rate of anastomotic leakage compared with the double-stapling technique (OR 0.79, 95% c.i. 0.33 to 1.25; P < 0.001).

Conclusion: This study shows a higher anastomotic leakage rate for larger circular staplers and manual technology. Similarly, the single-stapling technique has advantages over the double-stapling technique, while the tri-staple technology does not appear to confer advantages on anastomotic leakage occurrence.

结直肠手术中环形吻合器与吻合口漏:荟萃分析。
背景:吻合口瘘是结直肠切除术后令人恐惧的并发症。最近外科技术的进步,特别是圆形吻合器的使用,旨在改善术后预后。然而,圆形吻合器的最佳选择仍然不确定,围绕其对吻合口漏率的影响存在争议。本荟萃分析的目的是评估不同圆形吻合器特性对左结直肠切除术后吻合口漏发生的影响。方法:使用PubMed、Scopus和Web of Science数据库进行系统回顾和荟萃分析,以确定截至2023年11月(PROSPERO注册号:CRD42024519036)圆形吻合器与吻合口漏发生之间的相关性。根据PRISMA指南进行文献检索,并使用以下检索词:“结直肠手术”、“订书机”、“并发症”。仅纳入回顾性、队列、前瞻性和随机化的左结直肠切除术后吻合口漏率的临床试验,包括18岁以上的成人患者,并以英文发表。排除标准是不同设计的文章,包括结肠外或右/横结肠疾病的研究。本研究的质量评估采用纽卡斯尔-渥太华分级。结果是分析每个吻合器的特征,包括:直径,行数,技术(手动与电动)和吻合技术(单吻合器与双吻合器技术)对吻合口瘘发生的影响。结果:21项回顾性研究纳入24511例患者。与28/29 mm吻合器相比,直径为31/33 mm吻合器的吻合口漏率更高(OR -0.92, 95% ci . -1.74至-0.10;P = 0.02),而25 mm和28/29 mm直径之间无显著差异(OR = -0.46, 95% ci = -1.39 ~ 0.46;P = 0.2)。两排和三排环形吻合器组吻合口漏率相似(OR = 0.01, 95% ci = -0.16 ~ 0.13;P = 0.85)。相反,与手动技术相比,动力技术的吻合口漏率显著降低(OR = -0.83, 95% ci = -1.13至-0.35;P < 0.001)。同样,与双吻合术相比,单吻合术的吻合口漏发生率更低(OR 0.79, 95% ci 0.33 - 1.25;P < 0.001)。结论:大圆形吻合器和手工吻合器吻合口漏率较高。同样,单钉技术比双钉技术有优势,而三钉技术在吻合口漏的发生上似乎没有优势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BJS Open
BJS Open SURGERY-
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
3.20%
发文量
144
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信