Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Techniques in Coloproctology
Published in: Techniques in Coloproctology 3/2017

01-03-2017 | Review

A systematic analysis of controlled clinical trials using the NiTi CAR™ compression ring in colorectal anastomoses

Authors: R. Tabola, R. Cirocchi, A. Fingerhut, A. Arezzo, J. Randolph, V. Grassi, G. A. Binda, V. D’Andrea, I. Abraha, G. Popivanov, S. Di Saverio, A. Zbar

Published in: Techniques in Coloproctology | Issue 3/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

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.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Platell C, Barwood N, Dorfman G, Makin G (2007) The incidence of anastomotic leaks in patients undergoing colorectal surgery. Colorectal Dis 9:71–79CrossRefPubMed
2.
Trencheva K, Morrissey KP, Wells M et al (2013) Identifying important predictors for anastomotic leak after colon and rectal resection: prospective study on 616 patients. Ann Surg 257:108–113CrossRefPubMed
3.
Pommergaard HC, Gessler B, Burcharth J, Angenete E, Haglind E, Rosenberg J (2014) Preoperative risk factors for anastomotic leakage after resection for colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Colorectal Dis 16:662–671CrossRefPubMed
4.
5.
McDermott FD, Heeney A, Kelly ME, Steele RJ, Carlson GL, Winter DC (2015) Systematic review of preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative risk factors for colorectal anastomotic leaks. Br J Surg 102:462–467CrossRefPubMed
6.
7.
Cheragwandi A, Nieuwenhuis DH, Gagner M, Consten EC (2008) An update of available innovative staple line reinforcement materials in colorectal surgery. Surg Technol Int 17:131–137PubMed
8.
Morks AN, Havenga K, ten Cate Hoedemaker H, Leijtens JWA, Ploeg RJ (2013) For the C-seal Study Group. Thirty-seven patients treated with the C-seal: protection of stapled colorectal anastomoses with a biodegradable sheath. Int J Colorectal Dis 28:1433–1438CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Zbar AP, Nir Y, Weizman A, Rabau M, Senagore A (2012) Compression anastomose in colorectal surgery: a review. Tech Coloproctol 16:187–199CrossRefPubMed
10.
11.
Kaidar-Person O, Rosenthal RJ, Wexner SD, Szomstein S, Person B (2008) Compression anastomosis: history and clinical considerations. Am J Surg 195:818–826CrossRefPubMed
12.
Hardy TG Jr, Pace WG, Maney JW, Katz AR, Kaganov AL (1985) A biofragmentable ring for sutureless bowel anastomosis. An experimental study. Dis Colon Rectum 28:484–490CrossRefPubMed
13.
Hardy TG, Aguilar PS, Stewart WRC et al (1987) Initial clinical experience with a biofragmentable ring for sutureless bowel anastomosis. Dis Colon Rectum 30:55–61CrossRefPubMed
14.
Tarnita D, Tarnita DN, Bizdoaca N, Mindrila I, Vasilescu M (2009) Properties and medical applications of shape memory alloys. Rom J Morphol Embryol 50:15–21PubMed
15.
Nudelman I, Fuko V, Waserberg N et al (2005) Colonic anastomosis performed with a memory-shaped device. Am J Surg 90:434–438CrossRef
16.
Masoomi H, Luo R, Mills S, Carmichael JC, Senagore AJ, Stamos MJ (2013) Compression anastomosis ring device in colorectal anastomosis: a review of 1180 patients. Am J Surg 205:447–451CrossRefPubMed
17.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Int Med 151:264–269CrossRefPubMed
18.
19.
Kulu Y, Ulrich A, Bruckner T et al (2013) Validation of the International Study Group of Rectal Cancer definition and severity grading of anastomotic leakage. Surgery 153:753–761CrossRefPubMed
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
21.
Savović J, Jones H, Altman D et al (2012) Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomised controlled trials: combined analysis of meta-epidemiological studies. Health Technol Assess 16:1–82PubMed
22.
Abraha I, Cherubini A, Cozzolino F et al (2015) Deviation from intention to treat analysis in randomised trials and treatment effect estimates: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ 350:h2445CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
Chan AW, Hróbjartsson A, Haahr MT, Gøtzsche PC, Altman DG (2004) Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA 291:2457–2465CrossRefPubMed
24.
25.
26.
Tulchinsky H, Kashtan H, Rabau M, Wasserberg N (2010) Evaluation of the NiTi Shape Memory BioDynamix ColonRing™ in colorectal anastomosis: first in human multi-center study. Int J Colorectal Dis 25:1453–1458CrossRefPubMed
27.
Koo EJ, Choi HJ, Woo JH et al (2012) Anastomosis by use of compression anastomosis ring (CAR™ 27) in laparoscopic surgery for left-sided colonic tumor. Int J Colorectal Dis 27:391–396CrossRefPubMed
28.
Dauser B, Braunschmid T, Ghaffari S, Riss S, Stift A, Herbst F (2013) Anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection for rectal cancer: comparison of stapled versus compression anastomosis. Langenbecks Arch Surg 398:957–964CrossRefPubMed
29.
Kwag SJ, Kim JG, Kang WK, Lee JK, Oh ST (2014) Niti CAR 27 versus a conventional end-to-end anastomosis stapler in a laparoscopic anterior resection for sigmoid colon cancer. Ann Coloproctol 30:77–82CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
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 36:351–354
31.
Li XX, Cai SJ, Gao J et al (2011) Prospective study on the use of nickel-titanium temperature-dependent memory-shape device (CAR27) for anastomosis after colorectal surgery. Zhonghua Wei Chang Wai Ke Za Zhi 14:330–332PubMed
32.
Mathiessen P, Hallböök O, Andersson M, Rutegard J, Sjödahl R (2004) Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after anterior resection of the rectum. Colorectal Dis 6:462–469CrossRef
33.
Lustosa SA, Matos D, Attalah AN, Castro AA (2002) Stapled versus handsewn methods for colorectal anastomosis surgery: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Sao Paulo Med J 120:132–136CrossRefPubMed
34.
Dauser B, Herbst F (2009) NITI endoluminal compression anastomosis ring (NITI CAR27): a breakthrough in compression anastomoses? Eur Surg 41:116–119CrossRef
35.
Kopelman D, Lelcuk S, Sayfan J et al (2007) End-to-end compression anastomosis of the rectum: a pig model. World J Surg 31:532–537CrossRefPubMed
36.
Stewart D, Hunt S, Pierce R et al (2007) Validation of the NITI Endoluminal Compression Anastomosis Ring (EndoCAR) device and comparison to the traditional circular stapled colorectal anastomosis in a porcine model. Surg Innov 14:252–260CrossRefPubMed
37.
Berho M, Wexner SD, Botero-Anug A-M, Pelled D, Fleshman JW (2014) Histopathologic advantages of compression ring anastomosis healing as compared with stapled anastomosis in a porcine model: a blinded comparative study. Dis Colon Rectum 57:506–513CrossRefPubMed
38.
Mantovani D (2000) Shape memory alloys: properties and biomedical applications. J Miner Met Mater Soc 52:36–44CrossRef
39.
D’Hoore A, Hompes D, Folkesson J, Penninckx F, Pahlman L (2008) Circular “superelastic” compression anastomosis: from the animal lab to clinical practice. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 17:172–175CrossRefPubMed
40.
41.
Turner RM, Bird SM, Higgins JP (2013) The impact of study size on meta-analyses: examination of underpowered studies in Cochrane reviews. PLoS ONE 8:e59202CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
42.
Thorlund K, Imberger G, Walsh M et al (2011) The number of patients and events required to limit the risk of overestimation of intervention effects in meta-analysis–a simulation study. PLoS ONE 6:e25491CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
43.
Wood L, Egger M, Gluud LL et al (2008) Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta epidemiological study. Br Med J 336:601–605CrossRef
44.
Morino M, Parini U, Giraudo G, Salval M, Contul RB, Garrone C (2003) Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision: a consecutive series of 100 patients. Ann Surg 237:335–342PubMedPubMedCentral
45.
Sadahiro S, Kameya T, Iwase H et al (1999) Which technique, circular stapled anastomosis or double stapling anastomosis provides the optimal size and shape of rectal anastomotic opening? J Surg Res 86:162–166CrossRefPubMed
46.
Ambrosetti P, Francis K, De Peyer R, Frossard JL (2008) Colorectal anastomotic stenosis after elective laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for diverticular disease: a prospective evaluation of 68 patients. Dis Colon Rectum 51:1345–1349CrossRefPubMed
47.
Vihjalmsson D, Appelros S, Toth E et al (2015) Compression anastomotic ring-locking procedure (CARP) is a safe and effective method for intestinal anastomoses following left-sided colonic resection. Int J Colorectal Dis 30:969–975CrossRef
48.
Weizman A, Monassevitch L, Greenberg K, Mills S, Harari B, Dan I (2011) FE analysis of Nitinol leaf springs used in a compression anastomosis device. J Mater Eng Perform JMEPEG 20:646–652CrossRef
49.
Thompson SK, Chang EY, Jobe BA (2006) Clinical review: healing in gastrointestinal anastomoses, part I. Microsurgery 26(3):131–136
50.
Ågren MS, Andersen T, Mirastschijski U et al (2006) Action of matrix metalloproteinases at restricted sites in colon anastomosis repair: an immunohistochemical and biochemical study. Surgery 140:72–82CrossRefPubMed
51.
D’Hoore A, Albert MR, Cohen SM et al (2014) COMPRES: a prospective postmarketing evaluation of the compression anastomosis ring CAR 27(™) /ColonRing(™). Colorectal Dis 17:522–529CrossRef
52.
Li NN, Zhao WT, Wu XT (2016) Can a nickel-titanium memory-shape device serve as a substitute for the stapler in gastrointestinal anastomosis? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Surg Res 201:82–93CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
A systematic analysis of controlled clinical trials using the NiTi CAR™ compression ring in colorectal anastomoses
Authors
R. Tabola
R. Cirocchi
A. Fingerhut
A. Arezzo
J. Randolph
V. Grassi
G. A. Binda
V. D’Andrea
I. Abraha
G. Popivanov
S. Di Saverio
A. Zbar
Publication date
01-03-2017
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Techniques in Coloproctology / Issue 3/2017
Print ISSN: 1123-6337
Electronic ISSN: 1128-045X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-017-1583-2

Other articles of this Issue 3/2017

Techniques in Coloproctology 3/2017 Go to the issue

Original Article

Impact of preoperative steroid or immunosuppressant use on short-term outcomes following colectomy in Crohn’s disease patients

Original Article

Long-term results of transanal endoscopic microsurgery after endoscopic polypectomy of malignant rectal adenoma

Controversies in Colorectal Surgery

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: the verdict is not final yet!

Original Article

Permacol™ collagen paste injection for the treatment of complex anal fistula: 1-year follow-up

Correspondence

The Young Group of the Italian Society of Colorectal Surgery (You-SICCR)

Review

Systematic review: the impact of exercise on mesenteric blood flow and its implication for preoperative rehabilitation