A systematic analysis of controlled clinical trials using the NiTi CAR™ compression ring in colorectal anastomoses
- 359 Downloads
Anastomotic leak following colorectal surgery can be a devastating adverse event. The ideal stapling device should be capable of rapid creation of an anastomosis with serosal apposition without the persistence of a foreign body or a foreign body reaction which potentially contribute to early anastomotic dehiscence or late anastomotic stricture. A systematic review was performed examining available data on controlled randomized and non-randomized trials assessing the NiTi compression anastomosis ring—(NiTi CAR™) (NiTi Solutions, Netanyah Israel) in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) standards. A protocol for this meta-analysis has been registered on PROSPERO (CRD42016050934). The initial search yielded 45 potentially relevant articles. After screening titles and abstracts for relevance and assessment for eligibility, 39 of these articles were eventually excluded leaving 6 studies for analysis in the review. Regarding the primary outcome measure, the overall anastomotic leak rate was 2.2% (5/230) in the compression anastomosis group compared with 3% (10/335) in the conventional anastomosis group; this difference was not statistically significant (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.25–2.24; participants = 565; studies = 6; I 2 = 0%). There were no statistically significant differences between compression and conventional anastomoses in any of the secondary outcomes. This review was unable to demonstrate any statistically significant differences in favor of the compression anastomosis technique over conventional manual or stapled mechanical anastomoses.
KeywordsCompression anastomosis NiTi CAR ColonRing Biofragmentable anastomotic ring BAR Anastomotic leak
Dr. Alessandro Quintili developed and performed the search strategy, protocol draft, trial selection.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
For this type of study formal consent is not required.
- 6.Neutzling CB, Lustosa SA, Proenca IM, da Silva EM, Matos D (2012) Stapled versus handsewn methods for colorectal anastomosis surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2):CD003144. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003144.pub2
- 20.Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC (2011) Chapter 8: assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (es) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0. The cochrane collaboration. www.cochrane-handbook.org. Accessed June 2016
- 24.Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) guidelines. http://www.sign.ac.uk/guidelines/fulltext/50/checklist3. Accessed 20 June 2016
- 30.Hua S, Xiong L, Wen Y et al (2011) Safety and efficacy of gastrointestinal anastomosis with nickel titanium compression anastomosis clip. J Central South Univ Med Sci 36:351–354Google Scholar
- 49.Thompson SK, Chang EY, Jobe BA (2006) Clinical review: healing in gastrointestinal anastomoses, part I. Microsurgery 26(3):131–136Google Scholar