Obesity Surgery

, Volume 29, Issue 2, pp 401–405 | Cite as

Safety and Feasibility of a Lower-Cost Stapler in Bariatric Surgery

  • Kurt E. Roberts
  • L. Renee Hilton
  • Danielle T. FriedmanEmail author
  • Joel S. Frieder
  • Xuchen Zhang
  • Andrew J. Duffy
Original Contributions



Laparoscopic staplers are integral to bariatric surgery. Their pricing significantly impacts the overall cost of procedures. An independent device company has designed a stapler handle and single-use reloads for cross-compatibility and equivalency with existing manufacturers, at a lower cost.


We aim to demonstrate non-inferior function and cross-compatibility of a newly introduced stapler handle and reloads compared to our institution’s current stapling system in a large animal survival study.


University-affiliated animal research facility, USA.


Matched small bowel anastomoses were created in four pigs, one with each stapler (a total of two per animal). After 14 days, investigators blinded to stapler type evaluated the anastomoses grossly and microscopically. Each anastomosis was scored on multiple measures of healing. Individual parameters were added for a global “healing score.”


Clinical stapler function and gross quality of anastomoses were similar between stapler groups. Individual scores for anastomotic ulceration, reepithelialization, granulation tissue, mural healing, eosinophilic infiltration, serosal inflammation, and microscopic adherences were also statistically similar. The mean “healing scores” were equal. While this study was underpowered for subtle differences, safe and reliable performance in large animals still supports the feasibility of introducing new devices into human use.


The new stapler system delivers a similar technical performance and is cross-compatible with currently marketed stapling devices. An equivalent quality device at a lower price point should enable case cost reduction, helping to maintain hospital case margin and procedure value in the face of potentially declining reimbursement. This device may provide a safe and functional alternative to currently used laparoscopic surgical staplers.


Bariatric surgery Surgical devices Value New technology 


Funding Source

Lexington Medical, Inc. (Billerica, MA, USA) however full editorial control for this paper remains with the authors as listed.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

All applicable institutional and national guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.

Conflict of Interest

Kurt E. Roberts M.D. is a consultant for Lexington Medical, Inc. receiving consultation fee and stock options for services, and was paid only for the time of the trial. L. Renee Hilton M.D. was paid by Lexington Medical, Inc. for the time of the trial.

Danielle T. Friedman M.D. has nothing to disclose. Joel S. Frieder M.D. is a research intern for Lexington Medical, Inc. and has no financial compensation. Xuchen Zhang M.D., Ph.D. has nothing to disclose. Andrew J. Duffy M.D. is a consultant for Lexington Medical, Inc. receiving consultation fee and stock options for services and was paid only for the time of the trial.


  1. 1.
    Bendewald FP, Choi JN, Blythe LS, et al. Comparison of hand-sewn, linear-stapled, circular-stapled gastrojejunostomy in laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Obes Surg. 2011;21:1671–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Behzadi A, Nichols FC, Cassivi SD, et al. Esophagogastrectomy: the influence of stapled versus hand-sewn anastomosis on outcome. J Gastrointest Surg. 2005;9(8):1031–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Soper NJ, Brunt M, Fleshman Jr J, et al. Laparoscopic small bowel resection and anastomosis. Surg Laparosc Endosc. 1993;3(1):6–12.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hollis RB, Cannon JA, Singletary BA, et al. Understanding the value of both laparoscopic and robotic approaches compared to the open approach in colorectal surgery. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech. 2016;26(11):850–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Braga M, Vignali A, Zuliani W, et al. Laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery: cost-benefit analysis in a single-center randomized trial. Ann Surg. 2005;242(6):890–5. discussion 895–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kimura M, Kuwabara Y, Taniwaki S, et al. Improving the side-to-side stapled anastomosis: comparison of staplers for robust crotch formation. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2018;14(1):16–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    U.S. Food and Drug Administration Medical Device Database. 510(k) Premarket Notification. Via website: Accessed 16 February 2018.
  8. 8.
    Covidien. Endo GIA™ Reloads with Tri-Staple™: Technical Brochure 2011.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Steichen FM. The use of staplers in anatomical side-to-side and functional end-to-end enteroanastomoses. Surgery. 1968;64:948–53.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Steichen FM, Ravitch MM. Technics of staple suturing in the gastrointestinal tract. Ann Surg. 1972;175:815–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Reiling RB. Staplers in gastrointestinal surgery. Surg Clin North Am. 1980;60(2):381–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Russell KW, O’Holleran, Bowen ME, et al. The Barcelona technique for ileostomy reversal. J Gastrointest Surg. 2015;19(12):2269–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stahl R. Laparoscopic anastomotic techniques. SAGES (Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons). 2012. Website: /wiki/laparoscopic-anastomotic-techniques. Accessed 19 June 2017.
  14. 14.
    Ntourakis D, Katsimpoulas M, Tanoglidi A, et al. Adhesions and healing of intestinal anastomoses: the effect of anti-adhesion barriers. Surg Innov. 2016;23(3):266–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Steichen FM. Problems and complications associated with the use of stapling. Probl Gen Surg. 1985;2:18–30.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Enestvedt K, Thompson SK, Chang EY, et al. Clinical review: healing in gastrointestinal anastomoses, part II. Microsurgery. 2006;26:137–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Steichen FM, Ravitch MM. Mechanical sutures in surgery. Br J Surg. 1973;60:191–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ravitch MM, Steichen FM. A stapling instrument for end-to-end inverting anastomoses in the gastrointestinal tract. Ann Surg. 1979;189:791–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Steichen FM, Ravitch MM. Stapling in surgery. Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers Inc; 1984. p. 270–311.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Soper NJ, Barteau JA, Clayman RV, et al. Comparison of early postoperative results for laparoscopic vs. standard open cholecystectomy. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1992;174:114–8.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Martens MF, Hendriks T. Postoperative changes in collagen synthesis in intestinal anastomoses of the rat: differences between small and large bowel. Gut. 1991;32:1482–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Graham MF, Drucker DE, Diegelmann RF, et al. Collagen synthesis by human intestinal smooth muscle cells in culture. Gastroenterology. 1987;92:400–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Thompson SK, Chang EY, Jobe BA. Clinical review: healing in gastrointestinal anastomoses, part I. Microsurgery. 2006;26:131–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Surgery, Gastrointestinal SectionYale UniversityNew HavenUSA
  2. 2.Department of Surgery, Minimally Invasive and Digestive DiseasesAugusta UniversityAugustaUSA
  3. 3.Universidad Central de VenezuelaCaracasVenezuela
  4. 4.Department of Surgical PathologyYale UniversityNew HavenUSA

Personalised recommendations