Andrea Scardino, Carlo Galdino Riva, Luca Sorrentino, Sara Lauricella, Alberto Aiolfi, Matteo Rottoli, Gianluca Bonitta, Marco Vitellaro, Luigi Bonavina, Davide Bona, Michael Kelly, Emanuele Rausa
{"title":"左侧结肠切除术后使用动力环形订书机进行结肠直肠吻合术的效果:系统综述和荟萃分析。","authors":"Andrea Scardino, Carlo Galdino Riva, Luca Sorrentino, Sara Lauricella, Alberto Aiolfi, Matteo Rottoli, Gianluca Bonitta, Marco Vitellaro, Luigi Bonavina, Davide Bona, Michael Kelly, Emanuele Rausa","doi":"10.1007/s00384-024-04729-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Anastomotic leak (AL) remains the most important complication after left-sided colic anastomoses and technical complications during anastomotic construction are responsible of higher leakage incidence. Powered circular stapler (PCS) in colorectal surgery has been introduced in order to reduce technical errors and post-operative complications due to the manual circular stapler (MCS).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed. An electronic systematic search was performed using Web of Science, PubMed, and Embase of studies comparing PCS and MCS. The incidence of AL, anastomotic bleeding (AB), conversion, and reoperation were assessed. PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42024512644.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five observational studies were eligible for inclusion reporting on 2379 patients. The estimated pooled Risk Ratios for AL and AB rates following PCS were significantly lower than those observed with MCS (0.44 and 0.23, respectively; both with p < 0.01). Conversion and reoperation rate did not show any significant difference: 0.41 (95% CI 0.09-1.88; p = 0.25) and 0.78 (95% CI 0.33-1.84; p = 0.57); respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The use of PCS demonstrates a lower incidence of AL and AB compared to MCS but does not exhibit a discernible influence on reintervention or conversion rates. The call for future randomized clinical trials aims to definitively clarify these issues and contribute to further advancements in refining surgical strategies for left-sided colonic resection.</p>","PeriodicalId":13789,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Colorectal Disease","volume":"39 1","pages":"152"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11436432/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effect of powered circular stapler in colorectal anastomosis after left-sided colic resection: systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Andrea Scardino, Carlo Galdino Riva, Luca Sorrentino, Sara Lauricella, Alberto Aiolfi, Matteo Rottoli, Gianluca Bonitta, Marco Vitellaro, Luigi Bonavina, Davide Bona, Michael Kelly, Emanuele Rausa\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00384-024-04729-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Anastomotic leak (AL) remains the most important complication after left-sided colic anastomoses and technical complications during anastomotic construction are responsible of higher leakage incidence. Powered circular stapler (PCS) in colorectal surgery has been introduced in order to reduce technical errors and post-operative complications due to the manual circular stapler (MCS).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed. An electronic systematic search was performed using Web of Science, PubMed, and Embase of studies comparing PCS and MCS. The incidence of AL, anastomotic bleeding (AB), conversion, and reoperation were assessed. PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42024512644.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five observational studies were eligible for inclusion reporting on 2379 patients. The estimated pooled Risk Ratios for AL and AB rates following PCS were significantly lower than those observed with MCS (0.44 and 0.23, respectively; both with p < 0.01). Conversion and reoperation rate did not show any significant difference: 0.41 (95% CI 0.09-1.88; p = 0.25) and 0.78 (95% CI 0.33-1.84; p = 0.57); respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The use of PCS demonstrates a lower incidence of AL and AB compared to MCS but does not exhibit a discernible influence on reintervention or conversion rates. The call for future randomized clinical trials aims to definitively clarify these issues and contribute to further advancements in refining surgical strategies for left-sided colonic resection.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13789,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Colorectal Disease\",\"volume\":\"39 1\",\"pages\":\"152\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11436432/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Colorectal Disease\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-024-04729-1\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Colorectal Disease","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-024-04729-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:吻合口漏(AL)仍是左侧结肠吻合术后最重要的并发症,而吻合口构建过程中的技术并发症是造成吻合口漏发生率较高的原因。在结直肠手术中引入动力环形订书机(PCS)是为了减少手动环形订书机(MCS)的技术误差和术后并发症:方法:进行了系统回顾和荟萃分析。使用 Web of Science、PubMed 和 Embase 对比较 PCS 和 MCS 的研究进行了电子系统检索。评估了AL、吻合口出血(AB)、转换和再次手术的发生率。PROSPERO 注册号:CRD42024512644.Results:有五项观察性研究符合纳入条件,报告了 2379 名患者的情况。PCS术后AL和AB发生率的估计风险比明显低于MCS术后(分别为0.44和0.23;均为p 结论:PCS术后AL和AB发生率的估计风险比明显低于MCS术后(分别为0.44和0.23;均为p):与 MCS 相比,使用 PCS 可降低 AL 和 AB 的发生率,但对再介入或转归率没有明显影响。呼吁未来开展随机临床试验,旨在明确澄清这些问题,为进一步完善左侧结肠切除手术策略做出贡献。
Effect of powered circular stapler in colorectal anastomosis after left-sided colic resection: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Purpose: Anastomotic leak (AL) remains the most important complication after left-sided colic anastomoses and technical complications during anastomotic construction are responsible of higher leakage incidence. Powered circular stapler (PCS) in colorectal surgery has been introduced in order to reduce technical errors and post-operative complications due to the manual circular stapler (MCS).
Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed. An electronic systematic search was performed using Web of Science, PubMed, and Embase of studies comparing PCS and MCS. The incidence of AL, anastomotic bleeding (AB), conversion, and reoperation were assessed. PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42024512644.
Results: Five observational studies were eligible for inclusion reporting on 2379 patients. The estimated pooled Risk Ratios for AL and AB rates following PCS were significantly lower than those observed with MCS (0.44 and 0.23, respectively; both with p < 0.01). Conversion and reoperation rate did not show any significant difference: 0.41 (95% CI 0.09-1.88; p = 0.25) and 0.78 (95% CI 0.33-1.84; p = 0.57); respectively.
Conclusion: The use of PCS demonstrates a lower incidence of AL and AB compared to MCS but does not exhibit a discernible influence on reintervention or conversion rates. The call for future randomized clinical trials aims to definitively clarify these issues and contribute to further advancements in refining surgical strategies for left-sided colonic resection.
期刊介绍:
The International Journal of Colorectal Disease, Clinical and Molecular Gastroenterology and Surgery aims to publish novel and state-of-the-art papers which deal with the physiology and pathophysiology of diseases involving the entire gastrointestinal tract. In addition to original research articles, the following categories will be included: reviews (usually commissioned but may also be submitted), case reports, letters to the editor, and protocols on clinical studies.
The journal offers its readers an interdisciplinary forum for clinical science and molecular research related to gastrointestinal disease.