Risk of anastomotic leakage with two-row versus three-row manual circular staplers in colorectal anastomosis: a U.S. cohort study
Tóm tắt
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. 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. 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). 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.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Chiarello MM et al (2022) Anastomotic leakage in colorectal cancer surgery. Surg Oncol 40:101708
McDermott FD et al (2015) Systematic review of preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative risk factors for colorectal anastomotic leaks. Br J Surg 102(5):462–479
Ashraf SQ et al (2013) The economic impact of anastomotic leakage after anterior resections in English NHS hospitals: are we adequately remunerating them? Colorectal Dis 15(4):e190–e198
Frye J et al (2009) Anastomotic leakage after resection of colorectal cancer generates prodigious use of hospital resources. Colorectal Dis 11(9):917–920
Kube R et al (2010) Anastomotic leakage after colon cancer surgery: a predictor of significant morbidity and hospital mortality, and diminished tumour-free survival. Eur J Surg Oncol 36(2):120–124
Zoucas E, Lydrup ML (2014) Hospital costs associated with surgical morbidity after elective colorectal procedures: a retrospective observational cohort study in 530 patients. Patient Saf Surg 8(1):2
Asteria CR et al (2008) Anastomotic leaks after anterior resection for mid and low rectal cancer: survey of the Italian Society of Colorectal Surgery. Tech Coloproctol 12(2):103–110
Frasson M et al (2016) Risk factors for anastomotic leak and postoperative morbidity and mortality after elective right colectomy for cancer: results from a prospective, multicentric study of 1102 patients. Int J Colorectal Dis 31(1):105–114
Parthasarathy M et al (2017) Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after colorectal resection: a retrospective analysis of 17 518 patients. Colorectal Dis 19(3):288–298
Quero G et al (2022) Preliminary evaluation of two-row versus three-row circular staplers for colorectal anastomosis after rectal resection: a single-center retrospective analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis 37(12):2501–2510
Cheregi CD et al (2017) Mechanical suture in rectal cancer. Clujul Med 90(3):305–312
De Nardi P, Panzeri F, Staudacher C (2008) Prospective trial evaluating new circular and linear stapler devices for gastrointestinal anastomosis: preliminary data. Tech Coloproctol 12(1):69–72
Herzig DO et al (2020) Assessment of a circular powered stapler for creation of anastomosis in left-sided colorectal surgery: a prospective cohort study. Int J Surg 84:140–146
Nakanishi R et al (2022) Clinical impact of the triple-layered circular stapler for reducing the anastomotic leakage in rectal cancer surgery: porcine model and multicenter retrospective cohort analysis. Ann Gastroenterol Surg 6(2):256–264
Sun Q et al (2022) Short-term outcomes of tri-staple versus universal staple in laparoscopic anterior resection of rectal and distal sigmoid colonic cancer: a matched-pair analysis. World J Surg 46(11):2817–2824
Wester T, Hoehner J, Olsen L (1995) Rehbein’s anterior resection in Hirschsprung’s disease, using a circular stapler. Eur J Pediatr Surg 5(6):358–362
Mazaki J et al (2021) A novel predictive model for anastomotic leakage in colorectal cancer using auto-artificial intelligence. Anticancer Res 41(11):5821–5825
Mazaki J et al (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 101(27):e29325
Rahbari NN et al (2010) Definition and grading of anastomotic leakage following anterior resection of the rectum: a proposal by the International Study Group of Rectal Cancer. Surgery 147(3):339–351
Walker AM (2013) Matching on provider is risky. J Clin Epidemiol 66(8 Suppl):S65–68
Catarci M et al (2023) Three- versus two-rows circular staplers for left-sided colorectal anastomosis: a propensity score-matched analysis of the iCral 2 and 3 prospective cohorts. Int J Surg. Publish Ahead of Print
Jörgren F et al (2011) Anastomotic leakage after surgery for rectal cancer: a risk factor for local recurrence, distant metastasis and reduced cancer-specific survival? Colorectal Dis 13(3):272–283
Sylla P et al (2022) Outcomes associated with the use of a new powered circular stapler for left-sided colorectal reconstructions: a propensity score matching-adjusted indirect comparison with manual circular staplers. Surg Endosc 36(4):2541–2553
Kang CY et al (2013) Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after anterior resection for rectal cancer. JAMA Surg 148(1):65–71
Rubin DB (2007) The design versus the analysis of observational studies for causal effects: parallels with the design of randomized trials. Stat Med 26(1):20–36
Cafri G, Paxton E (2018) Mitigating reporting bias in observational studies using covariate balancing methods. Obs Studies 4:292–296
Yue LQ (2012) Regulatory considerations in the design of comparative observational studies using propensity scores. J Biopharm Stat 22(6):1272–1279
Hernandez PT, Paspulati RM, Shanmugan S (2021) Diagnosis of anastomotic leak. Clin Colon Rectal Surg 34(6):391–399
Bruce J et al (2002) Systematic review of the definition and measurement of anastomotic leak after gastrointestinal surgery. Br J Surg 88(9):1157–1168