SynthesisBJS open2026
Single-stapling versus double-stapling technique for rectal anastomosis-meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BJS open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe single-stapling technique (SST) is an alternative to the conventional double-stapling technique (DST), particularly in low rectal surgery. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared anastomotic leak (AL) between SST and DST.
methodsA systematic review of the PubMed/MEDLINE, Google Scholar®, and Scopus databases was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines from inception through December 2025. The primary outcome of interest was AL. A random-effects meta-analysis was used to compare AL, blood loss, operative time, and length of hospital stay between SST and DST. Risk ratios (RRs) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences or standardized mean differences were calculated for continuous outcomes. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were conducted according to surgical approach. Risk of bias was assessed, and the certainty of the evidence for AL was evaluated using the GRADE framework.
resultsOf 448 articles screened, 14 were included (2 randomized, 12 observational studies), comprising 1326 patients in the SST group and 1720 in the DST group. SST was associated with a significantly lower risk of AL than DST (RR 0.61; 95% confidence interval 0.42 to 0.90; P = 0.012), with moderate heterogeneity. Sensitivity analysis excluding studies with zero events yielded consistent results. Subgroup analyses showed no difference in AL for open intracorporeal SST compared with DST, a trend toward benefit with minimally invasive intracorporeal SST compared with DST, and a pronounced reduction in AL with transanal SST compared with DST.
conclusionsAlthough the causes of AL are multifactorial, with respect to the stapling technique, SST was associated with a lower risk of AL than DST, and this effect was primarily driven by transanal SST. However, the certainty of evidence is low, and ongoing prospective studies will better define the role of SST.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.