Effectiveness of a new triple-row circular stapler in reducing the risk of colorectal anastomotic leakage: A historical control and propensity score-matched study

8Citations
Citations of this article
9Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Anastomotic leakage (AL) after colorectal surgery is a serious complication. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the EEA™ circular stapler, a new triple-row circular stapler (TCS), relative to a conventional, double-row circular stapler (DCS). A total of 285 patients who underwent anastomosis with the double stapling technique at the Tokyo Medical University Hospital between 2017 and 2021 were included in this nonrandomized clinical trial with historical controls using a propensity score (PS) analysis. The primary endpoint was the risk of AL. We performed a 1:2 PS matching analysis. Before case matching, AL occurred in 15 (7.4%) and 2 (2.4%) patients in the DCS and TCS groups, respectively, with no significant difference (P =.17). After case matching, AL occurred in 13 patients (11.6%) and 1 patient (1.8%) in the DCS and TCS groups, respectively, revealing a significant difference (P =.04). Cox models were created by applying PS to adjust for group differences via regression adjustment. Odds ratios for AL in the DCS group versus the TCS group were 0.31 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.07-1.38) in the entire cohort, 0.15 (95% CI: 0.02-0.64) in the regression adjustment cohort, and 0.14 (95% CI: 0.02-1.09) in the 1:2 PS-matched cohort. PS analysis of clinical data suggested that the use of TCS contributes to a reduced risk of AL after colorectal anastomosis CTwith the double stapling technique.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Mazaki, J., Katsumata, K., Ishizaki, T., Fukushima, N., Udo, R., Tago, T., … Tsuchida, A. (2022). Effectiveness of a new triple-row circular stapler in reducing the risk of colorectal anastomotic leakage: A historical control and propensity score-matched study. Medicine (United States), 101(27), E29325. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000029325

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free