Scholarlink

Purpose <p>This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the efficacy of powered circular staplers (PCS) compared to manual circular staplers (MCS) in reducing anastomotic leakage (AL) and postoperative bleeding (AB) in colorectal surgery.</p> Methods <p>Extensive searches were performed in the Embase, PubMed, and SCOPUS electronic bibliographic databases. Most studies were of an observational nature, and only one randomized clinical trial was identified.</p> Results <p>Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria for anastomotic leakage and five for anastomotic hemorrhage. The number of patients included for AL analysis was 4524. The leakage rate was 4.6% (208 cases). The number of patients with AB was 2868 with a bleeding rate of 4.99% (143 patients). After identifying outliers and studies with possible selection bias, the odds ratio (OR) for leaks and PCS was 0.38 (95% CI 0.26–0.55), the relative risk was − 0.05 (95% CI − 0.07 to 0.03), and the number needed to treat to prevent one leak was 20. For bleeding, the PCS OR for PCS was 0.20 (95% CI 0.0772–0.5177).</p> Conclusion <p>Powered circular staplers could be associated with a significantly lower risk of leakage and anastomotic bleeding than two-row manual circular staplers. Further prospective randomized trials are needed to validate these findings.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Current evidence on powered versus manual circular staplers in colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年1月15日

查看全文
  • José Martín-Arévalo,
  • David Moro-Valdezate,
  • Leticia Pérez-Santiago,
  • Fernando López-Mozos,
  • Carlos Javier Peña,
  • Juan Antonio Carbonell Asins,
  • David Casado Rodrigo,
  • Stephanie García-Botello,
  • Claudia Gil-Alfosea,
  • Vicente Pla-Martí

摘要

Purpose

This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the efficacy of powered circular staplers (PCS) compared to manual circular staplers (MCS) in reducing anastomotic leakage (AL) and postoperative bleeding (AB) in colorectal surgery.

Methods

Extensive searches were performed in the Embase, PubMed, and SCOPUS electronic bibliographic databases. Most studies were of an observational nature, and only one randomized clinical trial was identified.

Results

Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria for anastomotic leakage and five for anastomotic hemorrhage. The number of patients included for AL analysis was 4524. The leakage rate was 4.6% (208 cases). The number of patients with AB was 2868 with a bleeding rate of 4.99% (143 patients). After identifying outliers and studies with possible selection bias, the odds ratio (OR) for leaks and PCS was 0.38 (95% CI 0.26–0.55), the relative risk was − 0.05 (95% CI − 0.07 to 0.03), and the number needed to treat to prevent one leak was 20. For bleeding, the PCS OR for PCS was 0.20 (95% CI 0.0772–0.5177).

Conclusion

Powered circular staplers could be associated with a significantly lower risk of leakage and anastomotic bleeding than two-row manual circular staplers. Further prospective randomized trials are needed to validate these findings.