4.4 Article

Impact of a circular powered stapler on preventing anastomotic leakage in patients with left-sided colorectal cancer: a retrospective study

期刊

BMC SURGERY
卷 23, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12893-023-02104-5

关键词

Colorectal cancer; Powered circular stapler; Double stapling technique; Anastomotic leakage

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compared the incidence of anastomotic leakage between a conventional manual circular stapler (MCS) and the ECHELON CIRCULAR™ Powered Stapler (ECPS) in patients with left-sided colorectal cancer who underwent anastomosis. The results showed that the incidence of anastomotic leakage was significantly lower in the ECPS group compared to the MCS group. Therefore, the ECPS has the potential to reduce the rate of anastomotic leakage in left-sided colorectal surgery.
BackgroundThe powered circular stapler, which was developed with the aim of providing reliable and reproducible anastomosis, provides complete anastomosis, resulting in a reduced risk of anastomotic leakage. The aim of this study was to compare the incidence of anastomotic leakage between a conventional manual circular stapler (MCS) and the ECHELON CIRCULAR & TRADE; Powered Stapler (ECPS) in patients with left-sided colorectal cancer who underwent anastomosis with the double stapling technique.MethodsA total of 187 patients with left-sided colorectal cancer who underwent anastomosis with the double stapling technique with a conventional MCS or the ECPS during surgery at Osaka City University Hospital between January 2016 and July 2022 were enrolled in this study.ResultsThe incidence of anastomotic leakage in the ECPS group was significantly lower than that in the MCS group (4.4% versus 14.3%, p = 0.048). Furthermore, even after propensity score matching, an association was found between the use of the ECPS and a reduced incidence of anastomotic leakage.ConclusionThe ECPS has the potential to help reduce the rate of anastomotic leakage in left-sided colorectal surgery.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据