-
Medicine Nov 2018Controlling of the renal vessels is a critical step in live donor nephrectomy (LDN). Currently, mainly 2 devices, Hem-o-Lok clips and staplers, are utilized to control... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Controlling of the renal vessels is a critical step in live donor nephrectomy (LDN). Currently, mainly 2 devices, Hem-o-Lok clips and staplers, are utilized to control vessels during LDN. Both of them have advantages and disadvantages.
METHODS
This systematic review and meta-analysis was aimed to compare the safety and the efficacy of the 2 devices and to identify the better one in LDN. A systematic search for related publications in the databases of PubMed, Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science through February 2018 was performed. Eight studies were selected and evaluated with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS).
RESULTS
The meta-analysis result showed that utilization of Hem-o-Lok clips resulted in greater amount of estimated blood loss (mean differences [MD]: 40.10; 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.37-75.84) and longer time of warm ischemia (WIT) (MD: 55.61; 95% CI 36.79-74.43) than using staplers. Residual vascular length of grafts in clip group was longer than that in stapler group (MD: 2.51; 95% CI 0.78-4.24). However, the differences in primary outcomes such as device failure rate, death rate, and severe hemorrhage rate, were not significant between these 2 groups. In addition, utilization of Hem-o-Lok clips costed approximate $400 lower than staplers per patient.
CONCLUSION
This study revealed that Hem-o-Lok clips and staplers have the similar function in LDN renal ligation, regarding the device failure rate, death rate, and severe hemorrhage rate. However, the surgeons would benefit from the clips in terms of the residue length of vessels, these outstanding features provide operation convenience and flexibility, such as right-sided donor nephrectomies, early vascular bifurcation, and rare vascular variation. In addition, the clips have potential economic advantages. In some developing countries, it would reduce the healthcare expenditure.
Topics: Blood Loss, Surgical; Equipment Failure; Humans; Kidney; Laparoscopy; Ligation; Living Donors; Nephrectomy; Renal Artery; Surgical Instruments; Surgical Staplers; Survival Rate
PubMed: 30407327
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000013116 -
Journal of Robotic Surgery Feb 2019A comprehensive review of operative outcomes of robotic surgical procedures performed with the da Vinci robotic system using either endoscopic linear staplers (ELS) or...
A comprehensive review of operative outcomes of robotic surgical procedures performed with the da Vinci robotic system using either endoscopic linear staplers (ELS) or robotic staplers is not available in the published literature. We conducted a literature search to identify publications of robotic surgical procedures in all specialties performed with either ELS or robotic staplers. Twenty-nine manuscripts and six abstracts with relevant information on operative outcomes published from January 2011 to September 2017 were identified. Given the relatively recent market release of robotic staplers in 2014, comparative perioperative clinical outcomes data on the performance of ELS vs. robotic staplers in robotic surgery is very sparse in the published literature. Only three comparative studies of surgeries with the da Vinci robotic system plus ELS vs. da Vinci plus robotic staplers were identified; two in robotic colorectal surgery and the other in robotic gastric bypass surgery. These comparative studies illustrate some nuances in device design and usability, which may impact outcomes and cost, and therefore may be important to consider when selecting the appropriate stapling technologies/technique for different robotic surgeries. Comparative perioperative data on the use of ELS vs. robotic staplers in robotic surgery is scarce (three studies), and current literature identifies both types of devices as safe and effective. Given the longer clinical history of ELS and its relatively more robust evidence base, there may be trade-offs to consider before switching to robotic staplers in certain robotic procedures. However, this literature review may serve as an initial reference for future research.
Topics: Colon; Digestive System Surgical Procedures; Equipment Design; Gastric Bypass; Humans; Rectum; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Surgical Staplers; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29744808
DOI: 10.1007/s11701-018-0822-5 -
Journal of Minimal Access Surgery 2022In the era of minimally invasive procedures and as a way to decrease the incidence of post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF), the use of staplers for distal... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND AND AIM
In the era of minimally invasive procedures and as a way to decrease the incidence of post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF), the use of staplers for distal pancreatectomy (DP) has increased dramatically. Our aim was to investigate whether reinforced staplers decrease the incidence of clinically relevant PF after DP compared with staplers without reinforcement.
METHODS
PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched for eligible studies from inception to 1 November 2021, and a systematic review and a meta-analysis were done to detect the outcomes after using reinforced staplers versus standard stapler for DP.
RESULTS
Seven studies with a total of 681 patients were included. The overall incidence of POPF and the incidence of Grade A POPF after DP are similar for the two groups (overall POPF, risk ratio [RR] = 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.71-1.01, P = 0.06; I = 38% and Grade A POPF, RR = 1.15, 95% CI = 0.78-1.69, P = 0.47; I = 49%). However, the incidence of clinically significant POPF (Grades B and C) is significantly lower in DP with reinforced staplers than DP with bare staplers (Grades B and C, RR = 0.45, 95% CI = 0.29-0.71, P = 0.0005; I = 17%). Nevertheless, the time of the operation, the blood loss during surgical procedure, the hospital stay after the surgery and the thickness of the pancreas are similar for both techniques.
CONCLUSION
Although staple line reinforcement after DP failed to prevent biochemical PF, it significantly reduced the rate of clinically relevant POPF in comparison to standard stapling.
PubMed: 35708377
DOI: 10.4103/jmas.jmas_47_22 -
Journal of Vascular Surgery Feb 2019One of the factors contributing to complications related to open repair of the aorta is the construction of a hand-sewn anastomosis. Aortic anastomotic devices (AADs),... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
One of the factors contributing to complications related to open repair of the aorta is the construction of a hand-sewn anastomosis. Aortic anastomotic devices (AADs), such as the intraluminal ringed graft (IRG), and the anastomotic stenting technique have been developed to perform a sutureless and less complicated anastomosis. This study performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature reporting clinical use of AADs and aimed to assess, primarily, the effect of each device on 30-day overall and operation-related mortality and aortic cross-clamping time and, secondarily, the rate of successful two-sided application of the IRG device and the operation-related morbidity for each device.
METHODS
An electronic search was performed using MEDLINE, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane Library by two independent authors. Our exclusion criteria included studies incorporating fewer than three patients and studies reporting results solely from animals or in vitro testing, results solely from end-to-side anastomosis, and results solely from endarterectomy procedures. The last search date was February 1, 2018.
RESULTS
A total of 41 studies were identified that reported outcomes for the use of three different device types: IRG, anastomotic stenting technique, and surgical staplers. The last two types were classified together as the non-IRG group. The meta-analysis included 27 studies with 50 cohorts incorporating 1260 patients. The median age of the incorporated patients was 61.4 years (range, 51-73 years), and 68.9% were male. The operations were performed for the treatment of acute aortic dissection in 82.3%. The pooled overall 30-day mortality rate varied by device type; IRG devices had a mean rate of all-cause mortality of 9.71%, whereas non-IRG devices were associated with a significantly (I = 15.78%; P for Cochrane Q test < .19) lower rate of death (1.47%). The pooled mean aortic cross-clamping time was 35.83 minutes. Metaregression showed that the performance of two-sided anastomosis with the IRG device significantly decreased the aortic cross-clamping time. However, a successful two-sided ringed anastomosis was performed in approximately half of the cases.
CONCLUSIONS
Taking into account that the majority of operations were performed for the treatment of acute aortic dissection, AADs had a relatively low rate of 30-day mortality. Despite the observed heterogeneity in study protocols and the small sample size in the non-IRG group, the non-IRG group presented with the lowest 30-day mortality rate. Specific device-related complications between the different device types need further investigation.
Topics: Aged; Anastomosis, Surgical; Aorta; Blood Vessel Prosthesis; Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Postoperative Complications; Prosthesis Design; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Stents; Surgical Stapling; Sutureless Surgical Procedures; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30683205
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2018.08.154 -
Frontiers in Surgery 2021Electrocautery and staplers are regarded as the two most common surgical instruments for dissecting the intersegmental plane in segmentectomy. We performed a...
Electrocautery and staplers are regarded as the two most common surgical instruments for dissecting the intersegmental plane in segmentectomy. We performed a meta-analysis to compare electrocautery and staplers in terms of their safety and effects. A systematic search strategy was performed using PubMed, and the retrieval time was up to April 1, 2020. Odds ratio (OR) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% CI were applied to determine the effectiveness of dichotomous or continuous variables, respectively. Six studies including 385 patients were included. The electrocautery had a higher incidence rate of postoperative complication [OR= 1.92, 95% CI (1.12, 3.28), = 0.02)] and air leak [OR: 3.91, 95% CI (1.64, 9.35), = 0.002)]. No significant difference was found in the comparison of surgery time, blood loss, and duration of tube days or hospitality days. Our study indicated that patients under segmentectomy were associated with better safety by using stapler than electrocautery in the reduction of postoperative complications.
PubMed: 34422895
DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2021.711685 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2017Laparoscopic appendectomy is amongst the most common general surgical procedures performed in the developed world. Arguably, the most critical part of this procedure is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Laparoscopic appendectomy is amongst the most common general surgical procedures performed in the developed world. Arguably, the most critical part of this procedure is effective closure of the appendix stump to prevent catastrophic intra-abdominal complications from a faecal leak into the abdominal cavity. A variety of methods to close the appendix stump are used worldwide; these can be broadly divided into traditional ligatures (such as intracorporeal or extracorporeal ligatures or Roeder loops) and mechanical devices (such as stapling devices, clips, or electrothermal devices). However, the optimal method remains unclear.
OBJECTIVES
To compare all surgical techniques now used for appendix stump closure during laparoscopic appendectomy.
SEARCH METHODS
In June 2017, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 6) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 14 June 2017), Embase Ovid (1974 to 14 June 2017), Science Citation Index - Expanded (14 June 2017), China Biological Medicine Database (CBM), the World Health Organization International Trials Registry Platform search portal, ClinicalTrials.gov, Current Controlled Trials, the Chinese Clinical Trials Register, and the EU Clinical Trials Register (all in June 2017). We searched the reference lists of relevant publications as well as meeting abstracts and Conference Proceedings Citation Index to look for additional relevant clinical trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared mechanical appendix stump closure (stapler, clips, or electrothermal devices) versus ligation (Endoloop, Roeder loop, or intracorporeal knot techniques) for uncomplicated appendicitis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors identified trials for inclusion, collected data, and assessed risk of bias independently. We performed the meta-analysis using Review Manager 5. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
MAIN RESULTS
We included eight randomised studies encompassing 850 participants. Five studies compared titanium clips versus ligature, two studies compared an endoscopic stapler device versus ligature, and one study compared an endoscopic stapler device, titanium clips, and ligature. In our analyses of primary outcomes, we found no differences in total complications (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.27 to 3.50, 8 RCTs, very low-quality evidence), intraoperative complications (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.55, 8 RCTs, very low-quality evidence), or postoperative complications (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.21 to 3.13, 8 RCTs, very low-quality evidence) between ligature and all types of mechanical devices. However, our analyses of secondary outcomes revealed that use of mechanical devices saved approximately nine minutes of total operating time when compared with use of a ligature (mean difference (MD) -9.04 minutes, 95% CI -12.97 to -5.11 minutes, 8 RCTs, very low-quality evidence). However, this finding did not translate into a clinically or statistically significant reduction in inpatient hospital stay (MD 0.02 days, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.17 days, 8 RCTs, very low-quality evidence). Available information was insufficient for reliable comparison of total hospital costs and postoperative pain/quality of life between the two approaches. Overall, evidence across all analyses was of very low quality, with substantial potential for confounding factors. Given the limitations of all studies in terms of bias and the low quality of available evidence, a clear conclusion regarding superiority of any one particular type of mechanical device over another is not possible.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Evidence is insufficient at present to advocate omission of conventional ligature-based appendix stump closure in favour of any single type of mechanical device over another in uncomplicated appendicitis.
Topics: Abdominal Wound Closure Techniques; Appendectomy; Appendix; Humans; Intraoperative Complications; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Operative Time; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Instruments; Surgical Staplers; Sutures
PubMed: 29190038
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006437.pub3 -
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery :... Dec 2023The primary aim was to investigate the operative outcomes of intracorporeal (IA) and extracorporeal (EA) anastomosis in left-sided minimally-invasive colectomy. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
The primary aim was to investigate the operative outcomes of intracorporeal (IA) and extracorporeal (EA) anastomosis in left-sided minimally-invasive colectomy.
METHODS
A comprehensive literature search was conducted for studies comparing operative outcomes and follow-up data of IA versus EA in minimally-invasive left colectomy. Studies that investigated recto-sigmoid resections using transanal circular staplers were excluded. Data from eligible studies were extracted, qualitatively assessed, and included in a meta-analysis. Odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences with 95 per cent confidence intervals were calculated.
RESULTS
Eight studies with a total of 750 patients were included (IA n = 335 versus EA n = 415). IA was associated with significantly lower overall morbidity (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.26-0.61, p < 0.0001) and less frequent surgical site infection (SSI) (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.12-0.61, p = 0.002) as primary outcomes compared to EA. Of the secondary outcomes, length of incision (SMD -2.51, 95% CI -4.21 to -0.81, p = 0.004), time to first oral diet intake (SMD -0.49, 95% CI -0.76 to -0.22, p = 0. 0004) and time to first bowel movement (SMD -0.40, 95% CI -0.71 to -0.09, p = 0.01) were significantly in favor of IA, while operative time was significantly shorter in the EA group (SMD 0.36, 95% CI 0.14-0.59, p = 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
IA proves to be a safe and feasible option as it demonstrates benefits in terms of lower overall morbidity, fewer rates of SSI, smaller incision length, and faster postoperative gastrointestinal recovery despite a longer operative time compared to EA.
Topics: Humans; Colic; Laparoscopy; Colectomy; Anastomosis, Surgical; Surgical Wound Infection; Surgical Wound; Treatment Outcome; Retrospective Studies; Colonic Neoplasms
PubMed: 37698813
DOI: 10.1007/s11605-023-05827-1 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2015Resections of the pancreatic body and tail reaching to the left of the superior mesenteric vein are defined as distal pancreatectomy. Most distal pancreatectomies are... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Resections of the pancreatic body and tail reaching to the left of the superior mesenteric vein are defined as distal pancreatectomy. Most distal pancreatectomies are elective treatments for chronic pancreatitis, benign or malignant diseases, and they have high morbidity rates of up to 40%. Pancreatic fistula formation is the main source of postoperative morbidity, associated with numerous further complications. Researchers have proposed several surgical resection and closure techniques of the pancreatic remnant in an attempt to reduce these complications. The two most common techniques are scalpel resection followed by hand-sewn closure of the pancreatic remnant and stapler resection and closure.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the rates of pancreatic fistula in people undergoing distal pancreatectomy using scalpel resection followed by hand-sewn closure of the pancreatic remnant versus stapler resection and closure.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Biosis and Science Citation Index from database inception to October 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing stapler versus scalpel resection followed by hand-sewn closure of the pancreatic remnant for distal pancreatectomy (irrespective of language or publication status).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and extracted the data. Taking into consideration the clinical heterogeneity between the trials (e.g. different endpoint definitions), we analysed data using a random-effects model with Review Manager (RevMan), calculating risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
MAIN RESULTS
In two eligible trials, a total of 381 participants underwent distal pancreatic resection and were randomised to closure of the pancreatic remnant either with stapler (n = 191) or scalpel resection followed by hand-sewn closure (n = 190). One was a single centre pilot RCT and the other was a multicentre blinded RCT. The single centre pilot RCT evaluated 69 participants in five intervention arms (stapler, hand-sewn, fibrin glue, mesh and pancreaticojejunostomy), although we only assessed the stapler and hand-sewn closure groups (14 and 15 participants, respectively). The multicentre RCT had two interventional arms: stapler (n = 177) and hand-sewn closure (n = 175). The rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula was the main outcome, and it occurred in 79 of 190 participants in the hand-sewn group compared to 65 of 191 participants in the stapler group. Neither the individual trials nor the meta-analysis showed a significant difference between resection techniques (RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.45; P = 0.66). In the same way, postoperative mortality and operation time did not differ significantly. The single centre RCT had an unclear risk of bias in the randomisation, allocation and both blinding domains. However, the much larger multicentre RCT had a low risk of bias in all domains. Due to the small number of events and the wide confidence intervals that cannot exclude clinically important benefit or harm with stapler versus hand-sewn closure, there is a serious possibility of imprecision, making the overall quality of evidence moderate.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The quality of evidence is moderate and mainly based on the high weight of the results of one multicentre RCT. Unfortunately, there are no other completed RCTs on this topic except for one relevant ongoing trial. Neither stapler nor scalpel resection followed by hand-sewn closure of the pancreatic remnant for distal pancreatectomy showed any benefit compared to the other method in terms of postoperative pancreatic fistula, overall postoperative mortality or operation time. Currently, the choice of closure is left up to the preference of the individual surgeon and the anatomical characteristics of the patient. Another (non-European) multicentre trial (e.g. with an equality or non-inferiority design) would help to corroborate the findings of this meta-analysis. Future trials assessing novel methods of stump closure should compare them either with stapler or hand-sewn closure as a control group to ensure comparability of results.
Topics: Fibrin Tissue Adhesive; Humans; Operative Time; Pancreas; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Instruments; Surgical Mesh; Surgical Staplers; Suture Techniques
PubMed: 26544925
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008688.pub2 -
International Journal of Colorectal... Jun 2021Robotic assistance could increase the rate of ileo-colic intra-corporeal anastomosis (ICA) during robotic right colectomy (RRC). However, although robotic ICA can be... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Robotic assistance could increase the rate of ileo-colic intra-corporeal anastomosis (ICA) during robotic right colectomy (RRC). However, although robotic ICA can be accomplished with several different technical variants, it is not clear whether some of these technical details should be preferred. An evaluation of the possible advantage of one respect to another would be useful.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review of literature on technical details of robotic ileo-colic ICA, from which we performed a meta-analysis of clinical outcomes. The extracted data allowed a comparative analysis regarding the outcome of overall complication (OC), bleeding rate (BR) and leakage rate (LR), between (1) mechanical anastomosis with robotic stapler, versus laparoscopic stapler, versus totally hand-sewn anastomosis and (2) closure of enterocolotomy with manual double layer, versus single layer, versus stapled.
RESULTS
A total of 30 studies including 2066 patients were selected. Globally, the side-to-side, isoperistaltic anastomosis, realized with laparoscopic staplers, and double-layer closure for enterocolotomy, is the most common technique used. According to the meta-analysis, the use of robotic stapler was significantly associated with a reduction of the BR with respect to mechanical anastomosis with laparoscopic stapler or totally hand-sewn anastomosis. None of the other technical aspects significantly influenced the outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
ICA fashioning during RRC can be accomplished with several technical variants without evidence of a clear superiority of anyone of these techniques. Although the use of robotic staplers could be associated with some benefits, further studies are necessary to draw conclusions.
Topics: Anastomosis, Surgical; Colectomy; Colic; Humans; Laparoscopy; Robotic Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 33486533
DOI: 10.1007/s00384-021-03850-9 -
BJS Open Sep 2022Circular staplers are commonly used for reconstruction after radical resection for colorectal cancer. Pathological analysis of the anastomotic rings is common practice,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Routine pathologic evaluation of circular stapler anastomotic rings is not useful after resection for colorectal cancer: retrospective study and systematic review with meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Circular staplers are commonly used for reconstruction after radical resection for colorectal cancer. Pathological analysis of the anastomotic rings is common practice, although the benefits are unclear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the usefulness of routine histopathological analysis of anastomotic rings in an original series and in a systematic review of the literature.
METHOD
The retrospective study was performed at two university-associated academic hospitals in Winnipeg, Canada, including patients investigated for colorectal cancers (within 30 cm of the anal verge) who underwent resection between 2007 and 2020. The systematic review involved Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science databases, selecting for adult human studies involving analysis of anastomotic rings in elective colorectal cancer resections. The main outcome measure was the proportion of patients with cancer in the anastomotic ring specimens. The frequency of benign pathology findings and changes to patient management were also examined.
RESULTS
Out of 673 eligible patients, 487 were included in the retrospective analysis. No patients had cancer within the anastomotic ring specimens. Twenty-five patients (5.1 per cent) had benign pathological findings within the anastomotic ring specimens, and patient management was never affected. In the systematic review, 27 articles were included in the final analysis out of 5848 records reviewed. The rate of cancer within anastomotic ring specimens was 0.34 per cent, and the rate of change in patient management was 0.19 per cent.
CONCLUSION
The likelihood of finding cancer within anastomotic rings is rare and their histopathological examination seldom changes patient management.
Topics: Adult; Anal Canal; Anastomosis, Surgical; Colorectal Neoplasms; Humans; Retrospective Studies; Surgical Stapling
PubMed: 36221190
DOI: 10.1093/bjsopen/zrac122