Does Tri‐Staple™ technology reduce the risk of anastomotic leakage in colorectal surgery? A propensity score matching analysis
Background and Objectives This study evaluates the Tri‐Staple™ technology in colorectal anastomosis. Methods Patients who underwent rectosigmoidectomy between 2016 and 2022 were retrospectively evaluated and divided into two groups: EEA™ (EEA) or Tri‐Staple™ (Tri‐EEA). The groups were matched for ag...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of surgical oncology 2024-09, Vol.130 (4), p.830-837 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 837 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 4 |
| container_start_page | 830 |
| container_title | Journal of surgical oncology |
| container_volume | 130 |
| creator | Gerbasi, Lucas Soares Tustumi, Francisco Seid, Victor Edmond Araujo, Sergio Eduardo Alonso |
| description | Background and Objectives
This study evaluates the Tri‐Staple™ technology in colorectal anastomosis.
Methods
Patients who underwent rectosigmoidectomy between 2016 and 2022 were retrospectively evaluated and divided into two groups: EEA™ (EEA) or Tri‐Staple™ (Tri‐EEA). The groups were matched for age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), and neoadjuvant radiotherapy using propensity score matching (PSM).
Result
Three hundred and thirty‐six patients were included (228 EEA; 108 Tri‐EEA). The groups were similar in sex, age, and neoadjuvant therapy. The Tri‐EEA group had fewer patients with ASA III/IV scores (7% vs. 33%; p |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1002/jso.27650 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_3041232543</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3041232543</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3130-d1753885315247780796147f92fbc8f7761c64f4f2e7f300a8a55cdd152e699b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp10bFuFDEQBmALEZEjUPACyBINFJvYa6-9rlAUICSKlCKhXvm84ztfvOvD9gpthxAPwDPwaHmSOFxCgUQ1xXzza6QfoVeUHFJC6qNNCoe1FA15ghaUKFEpotqnaFF2dcWlIvvoeUobQohSgj9D-6wVjCjSLNCPDwESvo7u9vuvq6y3Hm5__sYZzHoMPqxmHKGfDOC8BhxdusHBYj3qlMMQsjPYg77RK8BuxKYcRDBZe5ymuII4v8fHeBvDFsbk8oyTKXs86GzWblzdx_g5ufQC7VntE7x8mAfoy6eP1yefq4vL07OT44vKMMpI1VPZsLZtGG1qLmVLpBKUS6tquzStlVJQI7jltgZpGSG61U1j-r5wEEot2QF6u8stL32dIOVucMmA93qEMKWOEU5rVjecFfrmH7oJUyz_FkUZFbxhShT1bqdMDClFsN02ukHHuaOkuy-mK8V0f4op9vVD4rQcoP8rH5so4GgHvjkP8_-TuvOry13kHTTombc</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3131645396</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Does Tri‐Staple™ technology reduce the risk of anastomotic leakage in colorectal surgery? A propensity score matching analysis</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><creator>Gerbasi, Lucas Soares ; Tustumi, Francisco ; Seid, Victor Edmond ; Araujo, Sergio Eduardo Alonso</creator><creatorcontrib>Gerbasi, Lucas Soares ; Tustumi, Francisco ; Seid, Victor Edmond ; Araujo, Sergio Eduardo Alonso</creatorcontrib><description>Background and Objectives
This study evaluates the Tri‐Staple™ technology in colorectal anastomosis.
Methods
Patients who underwent rectosigmoidectomy between 2016 and 2022 were retrospectively evaluated and divided into two groups: EEA™ (EEA) or Tri‐Staple™ (Tri‐EEA). The groups were matched for age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), and neoadjuvant radiotherapy using propensity score matching (PSM).
Result
Three hundred and thirty‐six patients were included (228 EEA; 108 Tri‐EEA). The groups were similar in sex, age, and neoadjuvant therapy. The Tri‐EEA group had fewer patients with ASA III/IV scores (7% vs. 33%; p < 0.001). The Tri‐EEA group had a lower incidence of leakage (4% vs. 11%; p = 0.023), reoperations (4% vs. 12%; p = 0.016), and severe complications (6% vs. 14%; p = 0.026). There was no difference in complications, mortality, readmission, and length of stay. After PSM, 108 patients in the EEA group were compared with 108 in the Tri‐EEA group. The covariates sex, age, neoadjuvant radiotherapy, and ASA were balanced, and the risk of leakage (4% vs. 12%; p = 0.04), reoperation (4% vs. 14%; p = 0.014), and severe complications (6% vs. 15%; p = 0.041) remained lower in the Tri‐EEA group.
Conclusion
Tri‐Staple™ reduces the risk of leakage in colorectal anastomosis. However, this study provides only insights, and further research is warranted to confirm these findings.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-4790</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1096-9098</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1096-9098</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/jso.27650</identifier><identifier>PMID: 38630905</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Aged ; Anastomosis, Surgical - adverse effects ; Anastomosis, Surgical - methods ; anastomotic leak ; Anastomotic Leak - epidemiology ; Anastomotic Leak - etiology ; Anastomotic Leak - prevention & control ; Colorectal Neoplasms - surgery ; colorectal surgery ; Female ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Propensity Score ; Radiation therapy ; rectal neoplasms ; Retrospective Studies ; Surgical anastomosis ; Surgical Stapling - methods</subject><ispartof>Journal of surgical oncology, 2024-09, Vol.130 (4), p.830-837</ispartof><rights>2024 Wiley Periodicals LLC.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3130-d1753885315247780796147f92fbc8f7761c64f4f2e7f300a8a55cdd152e699b3</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-6695-0496 ; 0000-0003-3351-2590 ; 0000-0002-2361-254X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fjso.27650$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fjso.27650$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38630905$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Gerbasi, Lucas Soares</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tustumi, Francisco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Seid, Victor Edmond</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Araujo, Sergio Eduardo Alonso</creatorcontrib><title>Does Tri‐Staple™ technology reduce the risk of anastomotic leakage in colorectal surgery? A propensity score matching analysis</title><title>Journal of surgical oncology</title><addtitle>J Surg Oncol</addtitle><description>Background and Objectives
This study evaluates the Tri‐Staple™ technology in colorectal anastomosis.
Methods
Patients who underwent rectosigmoidectomy between 2016 and 2022 were retrospectively evaluated and divided into two groups: EEA™ (EEA) or Tri‐Staple™ (Tri‐EEA). The groups were matched for age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), and neoadjuvant radiotherapy using propensity score matching (PSM).
Result
Three hundred and thirty‐six patients were included (228 EEA; 108 Tri‐EEA). The groups were similar in sex, age, and neoadjuvant therapy. The Tri‐EEA group had fewer patients with ASA III/IV scores (7% vs. 33%; p < 0.001). The Tri‐EEA group had a lower incidence of leakage (4% vs. 11%; p = 0.023), reoperations (4% vs. 12%; p = 0.016), and severe complications (6% vs. 14%; p = 0.026). There was no difference in complications, mortality, readmission, and length of stay. After PSM, 108 patients in the EEA group were compared with 108 in the Tri‐EEA group. The covariates sex, age, neoadjuvant radiotherapy, and ASA were balanced, and the risk of leakage (4% vs. 12%; p = 0.04), reoperation (4% vs. 14%; p = 0.014), and severe complications (6% vs. 15%; p = 0.041) remained lower in the Tri‐EEA group.
Conclusion
Tri‐Staple™ reduces the risk of leakage in colorectal anastomosis. However, this study provides only insights, and further research is warranted to confirm these findings.</description><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Anastomosis, Surgical - adverse effects</subject><subject>Anastomosis, Surgical - methods</subject><subject>anastomotic leak</subject><subject>Anastomotic Leak - epidemiology</subject><subject>Anastomotic Leak - etiology</subject><subject>Anastomotic Leak - prevention & control</subject><subject>Colorectal Neoplasms - surgery</subject><subject>colorectal surgery</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Follow-Up Studies</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Propensity Score</subject><subject>Radiation therapy</subject><subject>rectal neoplasms</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Surgical anastomosis</subject><subject>Surgical Stapling - methods</subject><issn>0022-4790</issn><issn>1096-9098</issn><issn>1096-9098</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp10bFuFDEQBmALEZEjUPACyBINFJvYa6-9rlAUICSKlCKhXvm84ztfvOvD9gpthxAPwDPwaHmSOFxCgUQ1xXzza6QfoVeUHFJC6qNNCoe1FA15ghaUKFEpotqnaFF2dcWlIvvoeUobQohSgj9D-6wVjCjSLNCPDwESvo7u9vuvq6y3Hm5__sYZzHoMPqxmHKGfDOC8BhxdusHBYj3qlMMQsjPYg77RK8BuxKYcRDBZe5ymuII4v8fHeBvDFsbk8oyTKXs86GzWblzdx_g5ufQC7VntE7x8mAfoy6eP1yefq4vL07OT44vKMMpI1VPZsLZtGG1qLmVLpBKUS6tquzStlVJQI7jltgZpGSG61U1j-r5wEEot2QF6u8stL32dIOVucMmA93qEMKWOEU5rVjecFfrmH7oJUyz_FkUZFbxhShT1bqdMDClFsN02ukHHuaOkuy-mK8V0f4op9vVD4rQcoP8rH5so4GgHvjkP8_-TuvOry13kHTTombc</recordid><startdate>20240901</startdate><enddate>20240901</enddate><creator>Gerbasi, Lucas Soares</creator><creator>Tustumi, Francisco</creator><creator>Seid, Victor Edmond</creator><creator>Araujo, Sergio Eduardo Alonso</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6695-0496</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3351-2590</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2361-254X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20240901</creationdate><title>Does Tri‐Staple™ technology reduce the risk of anastomotic leakage in colorectal surgery? A propensity score matching analysis</title><author>Gerbasi, Lucas Soares ; Tustumi, Francisco ; Seid, Victor Edmond ; Araujo, Sergio Eduardo Alonso</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3130-d1753885315247780796147f92fbc8f7761c64f4f2e7f300a8a55cdd152e699b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Anastomosis, Surgical - adverse effects</topic><topic>Anastomosis, Surgical - methods</topic><topic>anastomotic leak</topic><topic>Anastomotic Leak - epidemiology</topic><topic>Anastomotic Leak - etiology</topic><topic>Anastomotic Leak - prevention & control</topic><topic>Colorectal Neoplasms - surgery</topic><topic>colorectal surgery</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Follow-Up Studies</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Propensity Score</topic><topic>Radiation therapy</topic><topic>rectal neoplasms</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Surgical anastomosis</topic><topic>Surgical Stapling - methods</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Gerbasi, Lucas Soares</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tustumi, Francisco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Seid, Victor Edmond</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Araujo, Sergio Eduardo Alonso</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of surgical oncology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Gerbasi, Lucas Soares</au><au>Tustumi, Francisco</au><au>Seid, Victor Edmond</au><au>Araujo, Sergio Eduardo Alonso</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Does Tri‐Staple™ technology reduce the risk of anastomotic leakage in colorectal surgery? A propensity score matching analysis</atitle><jtitle>Journal of surgical oncology</jtitle><addtitle>J Surg Oncol</addtitle><date>2024-09-01</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>130</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>830</spage><epage>837</epage><pages>830-837</pages><issn>0022-4790</issn><issn>1096-9098</issn><eissn>1096-9098</eissn><abstract>Background and Objectives
This study evaluates the Tri‐Staple™ technology in colorectal anastomosis.
Methods
Patients who underwent rectosigmoidectomy between 2016 and 2022 were retrospectively evaluated and divided into two groups: EEA™ (EEA) or Tri‐Staple™ (Tri‐EEA). The groups were matched for age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), and neoadjuvant radiotherapy using propensity score matching (PSM).
Result
Three hundred and thirty‐six patients were included (228 EEA; 108 Tri‐EEA). The groups were similar in sex, age, and neoadjuvant therapy. The Tri‐EEA group had fewer patients with ASA III/IV scores (7% vs. 33%; p < 0.001). The Tri‐EEA group had a lower incidence of leakage (4% vs. 11%; p = 0.023), reoperations (4% vs. 12%; p = 0.016), and severe complications (6% vs. 14%; p = 0.026). There was no difference in complications, mortality, readmission, and length of stay. After PSM, 108 patients in the EEA group were compared with 108 in the Tri‐EEA group. The covariates sex, age, neoadjuvant radiotherapy, and ASA were balanced, and the risk of leakage (4% vs. 12%; p = 0.04), reoperation (4% vs. 14%; p = 0.014), and severe complications (6% vs. 15%; p = 0.041) remained lower in the Tri‐EEA group.
Conclusion
Tri‐Staple™ reduces the risk of leakage in colorectal anastomosis. However, this study provides only insights, and further research is warranted to confirm these findings.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><pmid>38630905</pmid><doi>10.1002/jso.27650</doi><tpages>8</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6695-0496</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3351-2590</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2361-254X</orcidid></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0022-4790 |
| ispartof | Journal of surgical oncology, 2024-09, Vol.130 (4), p.830-837 |
| issn | 0022-4790 1096-9098 1096-9098 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_3041232543 |
| source | MEDLINE; Access via Wiley Online Library |
| subjects | Aged Anastomosis, Surgical - adverse effects Anastomosis, Surgical - methods anastomotic leak Anastomotic Leak - epidemiology Anastomotic Leak - etiology Anastomotic Leak - prevention & control Colorectal Neoplasms - surgery colorectal surgery Female Follow-Up Studies Humans Male Middle Aged Propensity Score Radiation therapy rectal neoplasms Retrospective Studies Surgical anastomosis Surgical Stapling - methods |
| title | Does Tri‐Staple™ technology reduce the risk of anastomotic leakage in colorectal surgery? A propensity score matching analysis |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-21T12%3A48%3A33IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Does%20Tri%E2%80%90Staple%E2%84%A2%20technology%20reduce%20the%20risk%20of%20anastomotic%20leakage%20in%20colorectal%20surgery?%20A%20propensity%20score%20matching%20analysis&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20surgical%20oncology&rft.au=Gerbasi,%20Lucas%20Soares&rft.date=2024-09-01&rft.volume=130&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=830&rft.epage=837&rft.pages=830-837&rft.issn=0022-4790&rft.eissn=1096-9098&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/jso.27650&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3041232543%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=3131645396&rft_id=info:pmid/38630905&rfr_iscdi=true |