In vivo (Athens, Greece) · 2025
A Meta-analysis of Powered Circular Stapler Versus Manual Circular Stapler for Colorectal Anastomosis.
СтатьяМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ohtani Hiroshi, Shibutani Masatsune, Tatsunari Fukuoka, Kasashima Hiroaki, Maeda Kiyoshi
Аннотация
BACKGROUND/AIM: The anastomotic leakage rate of the double stapling technique anastomosis in colorectal surgery remains high at approximately 10%. The Echelon Circular™ powered stapler (ECPS) has been recently reported to reduce the risk of anastomotic leakage. A meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of ECPS to that of the manual circular stapler (MCS) in left-sided colorectal resections.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched publicly available literature databases for studies published between 2018 and August 2024. The following search terms were used: "powered circular stapler", "powered circular", "anastomosis", and "powered echelon". We analyzed several outcomes including anastomotic leakage, major anastomotic leakage, and anastomotic bleeding. A subgroup analysis was performed to analyze Japanese cases only.
RESULTS: We identified 9 papers reporting results that compared ECPS for left-sided colorectal resection with MCS. Our meta-analysis included 3,301 patients with colorectal anastomosis; 1,135 had undergone ECPS and 2,166 had undergone MCS. The overall anastomotic leakage rate was significantly lower in the ECPS group than in the MCS group (p<0.0001). Regarding major anastomotic leakage, there was a tendency for the ECPS group to include fewer cases than the MCS group (p=0.10). For anastomotic bleeding, no significant difference was found between the two groups. In the subgroup analysis of Japanese patients, ECPS also showed significantly lesser anastomotic leakage than MCS.
CONCLUSION: ECPS may significantly reduce the rate of anastomotic leakage in left-sided colorectal surgery compared to MCS in both the Western and Asian populations.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched publicly available literature databases for studies published between 2018 and August 2024. The following search terms were used: "powered circular stapler", "powered circular", "anastomosis", and "powered echelon". We analyzed several outcomes including anastomotic leakage, major anastomotic leakage, and anastomotic bleeding. A subgroup analysis was performed to analyze Japanese cases only.
RESULTS: We identified 9 papers reporting results that compared ECPS for left-sided colorectal resection with MCS. Our meta-analysis included 3,301 patients with colorectal anastomosis; 1,135 had undergone ECPS and 2,166 had undergone MCS. The overall anastomotic leakage rate was significantly lower in the ECPS group than in the MCS group (p<0.0001). Regarding major anastomotic leakage, there was a tendency for the ECPS group to include fewer cases than the MCS group (p=0.10). For anastomotic bleeding, no significant difference was found between the two groups. In the subgroup analysis of Japanese patients, ECPS also showed significantly lesser anastomotic leakage than MCS.
CONCLUSION: ECPS may significantly reduce the rate of anastomotic leakage in left-sided colorectal surgery compared to MCS in both the Western and Asian populations.