Literature DB >> 24851213

The new stapler device is good, but needs more evaluation.

Young Wan Kim1, Ik Yong Kim1.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Year:  2014        PMID: 24851213      PMCID: PMC4022752          DOI: 10.3393/ac.2014.30.2.59

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Coloproctol        ISSN: 2287-9714


× No keyword cloud information.
See Article on Page 77-82 In colorectal surgery, safe anastomosis following complete tumor removal is an essential element. Colorectal surgeons inevitably encounter anastomosis-related complications, such as leakage, stenosis, or bleeding. Anastomosis leakage is associated with not only poorer short-term clinical outcomes, but also unfavorable oncologic outcomes [1]. In addition, anastomosis stenosis compromises the patient's quality of life. The use of the circular stapler has facilitated sphincter-preserving surgery for sigmoid colon or rectal cancer, and the stapling technique has become popular. However, that stapler device does not always guarantee a 100% safe colo-colic or colo-rectal anastomosis. In this regard, a compression anastomosis device (Colon Anastomosis Ring-ColonRing, NiTi Surgical Solutions, Netanya, Israel) has been introduced. However, small-scale animal and human studies have shown comparable results between stapled and compression anastomosis [2]. In this issue of the Annals of Coloproctology, Kwag et al. [3] published their retrospective data. The authors evaluated the safety and efficacy of the compression anastomosis device in 67 colon cancer patients and observed that the compression anastomosis device did not increase the incidence of anastomosis-related complications. This type of study, which investigates a new surgical device, always deserves to be applauded as new techniques carry unknown risks and a learning curve. However, this study was based on a retrospective, small series and only included data on colon cancer patients. In a recent study, Kang et al. [4] evaluated a total of 20 cases of compression anastomosis (anterior resection, 11; low anterior resection, 9) and experienced one anastomosis leakage in patients with rectosigmoid colon cancer. The compression anastomosis technique needs more large-scale clinical studies and more data on rectal cancer surgery before it will be accepted. A bad workman finds fault with his tools. For good gastrointestinal anastomosis, strict adherence to operative principles may be more important than the type of surgical device used. These principles include adequate exposure of the surgical field, the use of well-vascularized tissue, absence of tension, no fecal contamination, watertight closure, mucosal apposition and meticulous technique [5].
  4 in total

Review 1.  Compression anastomoses in colorectal surgery: a review.

Authors:  A P Zbar; Y Nir; A Weizman; M Rabau; A Senagore
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2012-04-26       Impact factor: 3.781

2.  Risk factors and oncologic impact of anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer surgery.

Authors:  Sang Hun Jung; Chang Sik Yu; Pyong Wha Choi; Dae Dong Kim; In Ja Park; Hee Cheol Kim; Jin Cheon Kim
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2008-04-12       Impact factor: 4.585

3.  Safety and efficacy of the NiTi Shape Memory Compression Anastomosis Ring (CAR/ColonRing) for end-to-end compression anastomosis in anterior resection or low anterior resection.

Authors:  Jeonghyun Kang; Min Geun Park; Hyuk Hur; Byung Soh Min; Kang Young Lee; Nam Kyu Kim
Journal:  Surg Innov       Date:  2012-06-13       Impact factor: 2.058

4.  Niti CAR 27 Versus a Conventional End-to-End Anastomosis Stapler in a Laparoscopic Anterior Resection for Sigmoid Colon Cancer.

Authors:  Seung-Jin Kwag; Jun-Gi Kim; Won-Kyung Kang; Jin-Kwon Lee; Seong-Taek Oh
Journal:  Ann Coloproctol       Date:  2014-04-25
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.