V Pla-Martí1,2, J Martín-Arévalo3, D Moro-Valdezate3,4, S García-Botello3,4, I Mora-Oliver3, R Gadea-Mateo3, C Cozar-Lozano3, A Espí-Macías3,4. 1. Department of Colorectal Surgery, University Clinic Hospital of Valencia, Av. Blasco Ibáñez, 17, 46010, Valencia, Spain. vplamarti@yahoo.es. 2. Department of Surgery, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain. vplamarti@yahoo.es. 3. Department of Colorectal Surgery, University Clinic Hospital of Valencia, Av. Blasco Ibáñez, 17, 46010, Valencia, Spain. 4. Department of Surgery, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several risk factors for anastomotic leakage (AL) following colorectal surgery have been described. Improvement in devices for performing anastomosis is a modifiable factor that could reduce AL rates. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of technical improvements in the Echelon Circular™ powered stapler (ECPS) on the left-sided colorectal AL rate compared to current manual circular staplers (MCS). METHODS: A cohort study was carried out on consecutive patients between January 2017 and February 2020 in whom left-sided stapled colorectal anastomosis above 5 cm from anal verge was performed. The primary end point was the risk of AL depending on the type of circular stapler used. The ECPS cases were matched to MCS cases by propensity score matching to obtain comparable groups of patients. RESULTS: Two hundred seventy-nine patients met the inclusion criteria. A MCS anastomosis was performed in 218 patients and ECPS anastomosis in 61 (21.9%). Overall, AL was observed in 25 (9%) cases. Factors significantly associated with AL were American Society of Anesthesiologists score (p = 0.025) and type of circular stapler used (p = 0.021). After adjusting the cases with propensity score matching (119 cases MCS versus 60 ECPS), AL was observed in 14 (11.8%) patients in MCS group and in 1 (1.7%) patient in the ECPS group (p = 0.022). AL in the MCS group required reoperation in seven cases (5.8%), the remaining seven patients were treated conservatively. The patient in the ECSP group required an urgent Hartmann's procedure CONCLUSIONS: The ECPS device could have a positive impact by reducing AL rates in left-sided colorectal anastomosis. Multicenter controlled trials are needed for stronger evidence to change practice.
BACKGROUND: Several risk factors for anastomotic leakage (AL) following colorectal surgery have been described. Improvement in devices for performing anastomosis is a modifiable factor that could reduce AL rates. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of technical improvements in the Echelon Circular™ powered stapler (ECPS) on the left-sided colorectal AL rate compared to current manual circular staplers (MCS). METHODS: A cohort study was carried out on consecutive patients between January 2017 and February 2020 in whom left-sided stapled colorectal anastomosis above 5 cm from anal verge was performed. The primary end point was the risk of AL depending on the type of circular stapler used. The ECPS cases were matched to MCS cases by propensity score matching to obtain comparable groups of patients. RESULTS: Two hundred seventy-nine patients met the inclusion criteria. A MCS anastomosis was performed in 218 patients and ECPS anastomosis in 61 (21.9%). Overall, AL was observed in 25 (9%) cases. Factors significantly associated with AL were American Society of Anesthesiologists score (p = 0.025) and type of circular stapler used (p = 0.021). After adjusting the cases with propensity score matching (119 cases MCS versus 60 ECPS), AL was observed in 14 (11.8%) patients in MCS group and in 1 (1.7%) patient in the ECPS group (p = 0.022). AL in the MCS group required reoperation in seven cases (5.8%), the remaining seven patients were treated conservatively. The patient in the ECSP group required an urgent Hartmann's procedure CONCLUSIONS: The ECPS device could have a positive impact by reducing AL rates in left-sided colorectal anastomosis. Multicenter controlled trials are needed for stronger evidence to change practice.
Authors: S Pucciarelli; P Del Bianco; U Pace; F Bianco; A Restivo; I Maretto; F Selvaggi; L Zorcolo; S De Franciscis; C Asteria; E D L Urso; D Cuicchi; G Pellino; E Morpurgo; G La Torre; E Jovine; C Belluco; F La Torre; A Amato; A Chiappa; A Infantino; A Barina; G Spolverato; D Rega; D Kilmartin; G L De Salvo; P Delrio Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2019-06-24 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: Mark A Boccola; Petra G Buettner; Warren M Rozen; Simon K Siu; Andrew R L Stevenson; Russell Stitz; Yik-Hong Ho Journal: World J Surg Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Nuh N Rahbari; Jürgen Weitz; Werner Hohenberger; Richard J Heald; Brendan Moran; Alexis Ulrich; Torbjörn Holm; W Douglas Wong; Emmanuel Tiret; Yoshihiro Moriya; Søren Laurberg; Marcel den Dulk; Cornelis van de Velde; Markus W Büchler Journal: Surgery Date: 2009-12-11 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Cloë L Sparreboom; Julia T van Groningen; Hester F Lingsma; Michel W J M Wouters; Anand G Menon; Gert-Jan Kleinrensink; Johannes Jeekel; Johan F Lange Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: S Atallah; S Kural; N Banda; A Banda; F Bawaney; F Cabral; V Neychev; C Patel; S Larach Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2020-03-19 Impact factor: 3.781
Authors: Walter R Marti; Gaudenz Curti; Heinz Wehrli; Felix Grieder; Michael Graf; Beat Gloor; Markus Zuber; Nicolas Demartines; Fabrizio Fasolini; Bruno Lerf; Christoph Kettelhack; Christiane Andrieu; Martin Bigler; Stefanie Hayoz; Karin Ribi; Christian Hamel Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Antonio Sciuto; Giovanni Merola; Giovanni D De Palma; Maurizio Sodo; Felice Pirozzi; Umberto M Bracale; Umberto Bracale Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2018-06-07 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Patricia Sylla; Peter Sagar; Stephen S Johnston; Harikumaran R Dwarakanathan; Jason R Waggoner; Michael Schwiers; Sanjoy Roy Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2021-05-24 Impact factor: 4.584