Preliminary evaluation of two-row versus three-row circular staplers for colorectal anastomosis after rectal resection: a single-center retrospective analysis

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) in Pancreatic Surgery: The Surgeon's Point of View

Pancreatic surgery is complex and associated with higher rates of morbidity and mortality compared to other abdominal surgeries. Over the past decade, the introduction of new technologies, such as minimally invasive approaches, improvements in multimodal treatments, advancements in anesthesia and perioperative care, and better management of complications, have collectively improved patient outcomes after pancreatic surgery. In particular, the adoption of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) recommendations has reduced hospital stays and improved recovery times, as well as post-operative outcomes. The aim of this narrative review is to highlight the surgeon's perspective on the ERAS program for pancreatic surgery, with a focus on its potential advantages for perioperative functional recovery outcomes.

Double-row staple technology versus triple-row staple technology for colorectal surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Some observational data have suggested that anastomotic leak may be reduced with triple-row staple technology compared to double-row staple technology. We aimed to investigate this further by performing a systematic review comparing double- and triple-row staple technology for colorectal anastomoses.

METHODS

This systematic review was reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched up to November 2023. Articles were eligible for inclusion if they were comparing double-row staple and triple-row staple technology for left-sided colo-colic, colorectal, or coloanal anastomosis. The main outcomes included anastomotic leak, anastomotic hemorrhage, 30-day mortality, and reoperation. Meta-analyses with inverse variance random effects were performed. Certainty of evidence was assessed with Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations.

RESULTS

After reviewing 340 relevant citations, 6 retrospective cohort studies met inclusion. Overall, 19,372 patients (mean age: 60.2 years, 52.7% female sex) had anastomoses with double-row staple technology, and 2,298 patients (mean age: 61.3 years, 50.3% female sex) with triple-row staple technology. Most operations were anterior resections (double-row: 55.3%; triple-row: 43.6%). Across all included studies, the risk of anastomotic leak was reduced with triple-row staple technology (6.3% vs 7.5%, risk ratio 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.31-0.94, P = .03, I2=75%). There were no significant differences in anastomotic hemorrhage (risk ratio 0.47, 95% confidence interval 0.15-1.49, P = .20, I2 = 57%), 30-day mortality (risk ratio 0.66, 95% confidence interval 0.17-2.55, P = .55, I2 = 0%), or reoperation (risk ratio 1.05, 95% confidence interval 0.42-2.64, P = .91, I2 = 56%).

CONCLUSION

Triple-row staple technology may reduce the risk of anastomotic leak in left-sided colorectal anastomoses.

Does Tri-Staple™ technology reduce the risk of anastomotic leakage in colorectal surgery? A propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

This study evaluates the Tri-Staple™ technology in colorectal anastomosis.

METHODS

Patients who underwent rectosigmoidectomy between 2016 and 2022 were retrospectively evaluated and divided into two groups: EEA™ (EEA) or Tri-Staple™ (Tri-EEA). The groups were matched for age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), and neoadjuvant radiotherapy using propensity score matching (PSM).

RESULT

Three hundred and thirty-six patients were included (228 EEA; 108 Tri-EEA). The groups were similar in sex, age, and neoadjuvant therapy. The Tri-EEA group had fewer patients with ASA III/IV scores (7% vs. 33%; p < 0.001). The Tri-EEA group had a lower incidence of leakage (4% vs. 11%; p = 0.023), reoperations (4% vs. 12%; p = 0.016), and severe complications (6% vs. 14%; p = 0.026). There was no difference in complications, mortality, readmission, and length of stay. After PSM, 108 patients in the EEA group were compared with 108 in the Tri-EEA group. The covariates sex, age, neoadjuvant radiotherapy, and ASA were balanced, and the risk of leakage (4% vs. 12%; p = 0.04), reoperation (4% vs. 14%; p = 0.014), and severe complications (6% vs. 15%; p = 0.041) remained lower in the Tri-EEA group.

CONCLUSION

Tri-Staple™ reduces the risk of leakage in colorectal anastomosis. However, this study provides only insights, and further research is warranted to confirm these findings.

Two-row, three-row or powered circular stapler, which to choose when performing colorectal anastomosis? A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Three types of circular staplers can be used to perform a colorectal anastomosis: two-row (MCS), three-row (TRCS) and powered (PCS) devices. The objective of this meta-analysis has been to provide the existing evidence on which of these circular staplers would have a lower risk of presenting a leak (AL) and/or anastomotic bleeding (AB).

METHODS

An in-depth search was carried out in the electronic bibliographic databases Embase, PubMed and SCOPUS. Observational studies were included, since randomized clinical trials comparing circular staplers were not found.

RESULTS

In the case of AL, seven studies met the inclusion criteria in the PCS group and four in the TRCS group. In the case of AB, only four studies could be included in the analysis in the PCS group. The AL OR reported for PCS was 0.402 (95%-confidence interval (95%-CI): 0.266-0.608) and for AB: 0.2 (95% CI: 0.08-0.52). The OR obtained for AL in TRCS was 0.446 (95%-CI: 0.217 to 0.916). Risk difference for AL in PCS was - 0.06 (95% CI: - 0.07 to - 0.04) and in TRCS was - 0.04 (95%-CI: - 0.08 to - 0.01). Subgroup analysis did not report significant differences between groups. On the other hand, the AB OR obtained for PCS was 0.2 (95% CI: 0.08-0.52). In this case, no significant differences were observed in subgroup analysis.

CONCLUSION

PCS presented a significantly lower risk of leakage and anastomotic bleeding while TRCS only demonstrated a risk reduction in AL. Risk difference of AL was superior in the PCS than in TRCS.

Efficacy of reinforcing sutures for prevention of anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection for rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Anastomotic leakage is a serious complication following surgery for cancer of the rectum. It is not clear whether reinforcing sutures could prevent anastomotic leakage. Therefore, this study aims at evaluating the efficacy of reinforcing sutures on anastomotic leakage.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases from inception to January 31, 2023. We included studies comparing anastomosis with reinforcing sutures to anastomosis without reinforcing sutures after low anterior resection. Risk of bias was assessed by the Cochrane tool for RCTs and the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies (ROBINS)-I tool for observational studies. The overall quality of evidence for primary outcome was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluations methodology.

RESULTS

Two RCTs (345 patients) and four observational studies (783 patients) were included. Anastomotic leakage occurred in 4.4% (24 of 548) of patients with reinforcing sutures and 11.9% (69 of 580) of patients without reinforcing sutures. Meta-analysis showed a lower incidence of anastomotic leakage (RR, 0.41; 95% CI 0.25 to 0.66, low certainty) in patients with reinforcing sutures. Operative time (WMD, -3.66; 95% CI -18.58 to 11.25) and reoperation for anastomotic leakage (RR, 0.69; 95% CI 0.23 to 2.08) were similar between patients with reinforcing sutures and those without reinforcing sutures.

CONCLUSIONS

While observational data suggest that, there is a clear benefit in terms of reducing the risk of anastomotic leakage with the use of reinforcing sutures, RCT data are less clear. Further large, prospective studies are warranted to determine whether a true clinically important benefit exists with this technique.

Risk of anastomotic leakage with two-row versus three-row manual circular staplers in colorectal anastomosis: a U.S. cohort study

PURPOSES

To compare the risk of anastomotic leak (AL) between Ethicon manual circular staplers (two-row) versus Medtronic EEA™ circular stapler with Tri-Staple™ technology (three-row) and between Medtronic EEA™ circular stapler with DST™ Series technology (two-row) versus Tri-Staple™ technology.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted in adult patients who underwent a left-sided colorectal surgery 2019-2022 in U.S. Premier Healthcare Database to assess the risk of AL within 30 days post-index procedure. The study devices were Ethicon manual circular staplers, Medtronic EEA™ circular stapler with DST™ technology, and Medtronic EEA™ circular stapler with Tri-Staple™ technology.

RESULTS

Across 447 hospitals, the cumulative incidences (95% confidence intervals [CI]) of AL within 30 days post-index procedure were 7.78% (6.91-8.74%) among 8337 patients in the Ethicon manual circular stapler cohort, 7.54% (6.87-8.27%) among 7928 patients in the Medtronic EEA™ circular stapler with DST™ technology cohort, and 8.19% (6.57-10.07%) among 1306 patients in the Medtronic EEA™ circular stapler with Tri-Staple™ technology cohort. Comparative analyses revealed no difference comparing Ethicon manual circular staplers with Medtronic EEA™ circular staplers with Tri-Staple™ technology (risk ratio [RR], 0.72; 95% CI, 0.52-1.01) or comparing Medtronic EEA™ circular staplers with DST™ technology to Tri-Staple™ technology (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.53-1.06).

CONCLUSION

In this analysis of a large cohort of patients undergoing a left-sided colorectal surgery from a U.S. hospital database, the risk of AL observed with manual two-row circular staplers was similar to that seen with three-row devices. This study affirms the safety of manual two-row circular staplers in colorectal anastomosis.

Three-row versus two-row circular staplers for left-sided colorectal anastomosis: a propensity score-matched analysis of the iCral 2 and 3 prospective cohorts

BACKGROUND

Since most anastomoses after left-sided colorectal resections are performed with a circular stapler, any technological change in stapling devices may influence the incidence of anastomotic adverse events. The aim of the present study was to analyze the effect of a three-row circular stapler on anastomotic leakage and related morbidity after left-sided colorectal resections.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A circular stapled anastomosis was performed in 4255 (50.9%) out of 8359 patients enrolled in two prospective multicenter studies in Italy, and, after exclusion criteria to reduce heterogeneity, 2799 (65.8%) cases were retrospectively analyzed through a 1:1 propensity score-matching model including 20 covariates relative to patient characteristics, to surgery and to perioperative management. Two well-balanced groups of 425 patients each were obtained: group (A) - true population of interest, anastomosis performed with a three-row circular stapler; group (B) - control population, anastomosis performed with a two-row circular stapler. The target of inferences was the average treatment effect in the treated (ATT). The primary endpoints were overall and major anastomotic leakage and overall anastomotic bleeding; the secondary endpoints were overall and major morbidity and mortality rates. The results of multiple logistic regression analyses for the outcomes, including the 20 covariates selected for matching, were presented as odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).

RESULTS

Group A versus group B showed a significantly lower risk of overall anastomotic leakage (2.1 vs. 6.1%; OR 0.33; 95% CI 0.15-0.73; P =0.006), major anastomotic leakage (2.1 vs. 5.2%; OR 0.39; 95% CI 0.17-0.87; P =0.022), and major morbidity (3.5 vs. 6.6% events; OR 0.47; 95% CI 0.24-0.91; P =0.026).

CONCLUSION

The use of three-row circular staplers independently reduced the risk of anastomotic leakage and related morbidity after left-sided colorectal resection. Twenty-five patients were required to avoid one leakage.