What Are the Advantages of colorectal surgery stapler？

Background: Laparoscopic anterior resection (LAR) is a standard surgical approach for rectal cancer, with anastomotic techniques influencing postoperative outcomes. The use of circular staplers, either manual or powered, is critical in rectal reconstruction. While manual circular staplers are widely used, powered circular staplers have been introduced to improve precision and reduce complications. This study compares the short-term outcomes of rectal reconstruction using manual versus powered circular staplers in laparoscopic anterior resection. Materials and Methods: This prospective comparative study included 100 patients who underwent LAR for rectal cancer, randomized into two groups: 50 patients underwent anastomosis with a manual circular stapler (Group A), and 50 patients with a powered circular stapler (Group B). Short-term outcomes, including anastomotic leakage rate, operative time, postoperative pain, and hospital stay, were assessed. Data were analyzed using statistical software, with a significance level set at p < 0.05. Results: The mean operative time was 145 ± 15 minutes in Group A and 130 ± 12 minutes in Group B (p = 0.02). Anastomotic leakage occurred in 10% of patients in Group A and 4% in Group B (p = 0.04). Postoperative pain scores at 24 hours were significantly lower in Group B (3.2 ± 1.1) compared to Group A (4.8 ± 1.3, p = 0.01). The mean hospital stay was 7.5 ± 1.2 days for Group A and 6.2 ± 1.0 days for Group B (p = 0.03). Conclusion: The use of a powered circular stapler in laparoscopic anterior resection demonstrated improved short-term outcomes, including reduced anastomotic leakage, shorter operative time, lower postoperative pain, and decreased hospital stay. These findings suggest that powered circular staplers may offer a safer and more efficient alternative to manual staplers in rectal reconstruction.

You will get efficient and thoughtful service from Ezisurg.

Laparoscopic anterior resection (LAR) is a widely accepted surgical approach for the treatment of rectal cancer, aiming to achieve oncological clearance while preserving bowel continuity and function (1). The anastomosis technique used in rectal reconstruction plays a critical role in determining postoperative outcomes, particularly the incidence of anastomotic leakage, which remains a significant complication (2). Traditionally, circular staplers have been employed for colorectal anastomosis, with manual devices being the standard choice. However, advancements in surgical stapling technology have led to the development of powered circular staplers, designed to provide improved consistency, reduced tissue trauma, and potentially lower complication rates (3,4).

Several studies have compared manual and powered staplers in colorectal surgery, with findings suggesting that powered staplers may contribute to reduced anastomotic leakage, improved staple formation, and better tissue perfusion (5). Additionally, powered staplers are thought to minimize the force required for firing, leading to more precise and uniform anastomotic construction, which may translate into improved short-term outcomes, including reduced postoperative pain and faster recovery (6). Despite these advantages, the routine use of powered circular staplers remains controversial due to cost considerations and the need for further evidence on their clinical benefits (7).

The present study aims to compare the short-term outcomes of rectal reconstruction following laparoscopic anterior resection using manual versus powered circular staplers. The primary endpoints assessed include anastomotic leakage rates, operative time, postoperative pain, and hospital stay. The findings from this study may help guide surgical decision-making regarding the optimal stapling technique for rectal anastomosis.

Study Design and Patient Selection

This prospective comparative study was conducted to evaluate the short-term outcomes of rectal reconstruction using manual versus powered circular staplers in laparoscopic anterior resection. A total of 100 patients diagnosed with mid to low rectal cancer and scheduled for elective laparoscopic anterior resection were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned into two groups: Group A (n = 50) underwent anastomosis using a manual circular stapler, while Group B (n = 50) underwent anastomosis using a powered circular stapler. Inclusion criteria included patients aged 18–75 years, with resectable rectal tumors located within 5–15 cm from the anal verge. Patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease, previous pelvic radiation, or severe comorbidities that contraindicated surgery were excluded.

Surgical Technique

All procedures were performed under general anesthesia by experienced colorectal surgeons. Standard laparoscopic anterior resection was carried out, ensuring total mesorectal excision (TME) for oncological safety. Following mobilization of the rectum and bowel resection, colorectal anastomosis was performed using either a manual or powered circular stapler based on group allocation. The anastomotic integrity was assessed intraoperatively using air leak testing. A diverting ileostomy was performed selectively based on surgeon discretion and patient risk factors.

Outcome Measures

Short-term outcomes were assessed, including:

1. Operative time – measured in minutes from skin incision to closure.
2. Anastomotic leakage – defined by clinical symptoms (fever, peritonitis) and confirmed by imaging (CT scan with contrast) or reoperation if required.
3. Postoperative pain – evaluated using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at 24 hours post-surgery.
4. Hospital stay – recorded from the day of surgery to discharge.
5. Other postoperative complications – including wound infections, ileus, and reoperations.

Statistical Analysis

Data were analyzed using SPSS software (version 26). Continuous variables were expressed as mean ± standard deviation and compared using an independent t-test. Categorical variables were analyzed using the chi-square or Fisher’s exact test. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Demographic and Clinical Characteristics

A total of 100 patients were included in the study, with 50 patients in each group. The mean age of patients in Group A (manual stapler) was 58.3 ± 6.2 years, while in Group B (powered stapler), it was 57.6 ± 5.9 years (p = 0.65). The gender distribution was similar between the two groups (Table 1). The mean BMI was comparable between Group A (24.8 ± 2.5 kg/m²) and Group B (25.1 ± 2.3 kg/m², p = 0.55). The tumor location from the anal verge showed no statistically significant difference between the groups (p = 0.68) (Table 1).

Table 1: Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of Patients

Operative and Postoperative Outcomes

The mean operative time was significantly lower in the powered stapler group (130 ± 12 minutes) compared to the manual stapler group (145 ± 15 minutes, p = 0.02). Anastomotic leakage was observed in 10% of patients in Group A and 4% in Group B, with a statistically significant difference (p = 0.04). Postoperative pain scores, assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), were significantly lower in Group B (3.2 ± 1.1) than in Group A (4.8 ± 1.3, p = 0.01). The hospital stay was also shorter in the powered stapler group (6.2 ± 1.0 days) compared to the manual stapler group (7.5 ± 1.2 days, p = 0.03) (Table 2).

Table 2: Operative and Postoperative Outcomes

These findings indicate that the use of a powered circular stapler in laparoscopic anterior resection results in reduced operative time, lower anastomotic leakage rates, decreased postoperative pain, and shorter hospital stays compared to the manual stapler technique.

​

Laparoscopic anterior resection (LAR) is a well-established surgical approach for rectal cancer management, with anastomotic integrity being a crucial determinant of postoperative outcomes (1). The choice of stapling technique significantly impacts anastomotic healing, influencing the rates of leakage, postoperative pain, and overall recovery. This study compared the short-term outcomes of rectal reconstruction using manual and powered circular staplers, demonstrating a significant advantage of powered staplers in reducing operative time, anastomotic leakage, postoperative pain, and hospital stay.

The observed reduction in operative time with powered staplers (130 ± 12 minutes vs. 145 ± 15 minutes, p = 0.02) is consistent with previous studies, which suggest that powered staplers enhance technical efficiency by minimizing manual force required during firing, leading to faster anastomotic construction (2,3). Faster staple formation and reduced risk of misfiring have been highlighted as potential advantages of powered staplers in colorectal surgery (4). Moreover, a decrease in anastomotic leakage rates (4% in powered stapler group vs. 10% in manual stapler group, p = 0.04) aligns with existing literature supporting the improved staple line integrity and better tissue perfusion offered by powered devices (5,6).

Anastomotic leakage remains one of the most feared complications in colorectal surgery, with incidence rates ranging from 3% to 15% depending on patient-related factors and surgical technique (7,8). Several studies have demonstrated that powered staplers provide more uniform staple formation, potentially reducing the risk of ischemia at the anastomotic site, which is a key factor in preventing leakage (9). A meta-analysis comparing manual and powered staplers in rectal cancer surgery reported a significant reduction in anastomotic leakage with powered staplers, supporting the findings of the present study (10).

Postoperative pain, an essential determinant of patient recovery, was significantly lower in the powered stapler group (VAS score: 3.2 ± 1.1 vs. 4.8 ± 1.3, p = 0.01). This reduction may be attributed to decreased tissue trauma and more precise staple application, leading to better wound healing (11). Previous research has shown that powered staplers generate less compressive force on tissues, resulting in reduced inflammatory response and improved postoperative comfort (12).

Shorter hospital stays in the powered stapler group (6.2 ± 1.0 days vs. 7.5 ± 1.2 days, p = 0.03) are likely a consequence of lower complication rates and faster postoperative recovery (13). Enhanced anastomotic security with powered staplers may contribute to early return of bowel function and reduced need for prolonged hospitalization, as reported in previous randomized trials (14,15). However, the economic implications of powered stapler use, considering their higher cost, must be weighed against potential reductions in postoperative morbidity and hospital resource utilization.

If you are looking for more details, kindly visit colorectal surgery stapler.

While this study provides valuable insights into the benefits of powered circular staplers, it has limitations, including a relatively small sample size and short follow-up duration. Future multicentre randomized trials with long-term outcomes are needed to validate these findings and assess potential cost-effectiveness.

1.Introduction

Historically, open surgery has been the standard approach for colorectal procedures [1]. More recently, the laparoscopic approach has also gained in popularity owing to advantages in smaller incision length, less blood loss and pain, and quicker recovery compared to open surgeries [2,3]. However, laparoscopic surgery may become problematic if the surgery involves large and heavy tumors, due to the lack of tactile feedback and adequate exposure [2,4]. The benefits of laparoscopic surgery are generally harder to realize in the resection of rectal cancers because of technical difficulties in working around the complex anatomy near the rectum - especially in a deep male pelvis. There also are some patient types, including obese patients, and those with prohibitive lesions, thickened bowels, locally advanced disease or difficult anatomy, for whom open surgery may be the only viable option [5]. In addition, the longer learning curve for laparoscopic surgery may require a surgeon to perform a sufficient number of procedures each year to attain a high level of competence in such procedures as an alternative to open surgery [5,6]. Increasing experience in laparoscopy has also been associated with improved economic outcomes [7]. It is understandable, therefore, that the majority of data demonstrating the benefits of laparoscopic surgery have been generated in high-volume institutions or clinical trials, where surgeons are generally more experienced in laparoscopic techniques [8]. As such, it is possible that the benefits of laparoscopic surgery are potentially less pronounced at low-volume institutions - thus strengthening the value of open procedures at such centers [9,10].

As a more recent attempt at finding a more universally viable option, hybrid surgical approaches consisting of laparoscopic splenic flexure takedown (with or without partial rectal mobilization and devascularization) followed by completion of the procedure via infra-umbilical midline laparotomy, have also been attempted with surgical staplers resulting in shorter incision and hospital stay [11]. Irrespective of the surgical approach, however, the choice of tools, including surgical staplers, is critical to optimizing outcomes of colorectal surgery. For example, the use of mechanical surgical stapling devices rather than hand-sewing with sutures for anastomosis formation has been linked to improved outcomes and reduced costs of open colorectal surgery [12].

The CONTOUR® Curved Cutter Stapler (Ethicon, Cincinnati, OH, (Figure 1) has been utilized for the last several years as a versatile stapling device, offering optimal anatomic access and a secure staple line in both open and hybrid surgical procedures.

With its unique curved head, Contour is designed to provide a more precise transection and less tissue slippage compared to other similar stapling devices currently available. The curved head allows for placement of a 40 mm cutline in the width of a 30mm space and low pelvic access without handle obstruction - thus enabling transection perpendicular to the rectum (Figure 2).

The tissue retaining pin with manual closure option holds tissue in place during compression and firing, allowing for a more precise transection. This enables the Contour stapler to experience less tissue slippage during firing and may, as a result, eliminate the need for one extra reload per procedure compared to other similar staplers. Contour is also designed to be reloaded when needed to complete a single transection with multiple firings. In addition, with the stapling and cutting functions combined in one device, the need and cost for a bowel clamp and scalpel are eliminated. However, despite its obvious potential advantages as a cutter-stapler, the evidence of clinical value of Contour is not well documented. The goal of this study was to review research published in peer-reviewed journals, and report an assessment of the clinical value of the market leading Contour device in colorectal procedures.

2.Methods

A systematic search of the PubMed database was conducted for clinical studies published between January 1, and August 1, on the use of Contour in colorectal surgical procedures. The search terms included “Contour,” “Curved,” “Staplers,” and "Surgery" and their variations like “Surgical procedures”, “Operative” and “General surgery.” Studies were excluded if they did not involve colorectal surgical procedures, used only hand-sewn technique or linear tapers, involved stapled trans-anal rectal resections, were concept design only, or if they were in a language other than English. Non-English articles that provided an English abstract were also additionally reviewed for relevance and those identified through that process were subsequently translated in to English. The review was conducted by two independent reviewers to ensure suitability and appropriateness of the selected articles. From the search, 51 articles were retrieved with potentially relevant information (Table 1). After the exclusion criteria were applied to the 51 retrieved articles, two comparative studies and six non-comparative studies were identified in which Contour was used in colorectal surgical procedures not involving prolapse or endometrial surgery. Additionally, four Chinese language articles were identified through the manual review of their English abstracts, and their translated versions were added subsequent to the initial search. Thus, a total of 12 articles with relevant information were identified: four comparative studies (including two translated from Chinese), and eight non-comparative studies (including two translated from Chinese).

3.Results

3.1.Comparative Studies

As stated above, there were four studies identified that presented comparisons of outcomes based on the use of Contour or another device or transection modality. A study in China evaluated 309 patients undergoing low rectal cancer surgery and found that the Contour stapler group had a statistically higher rate (57.8%) of anus preservation compared to a locally manufactured linear stapler group (44.7%, p<0.05), while other complication rates were similar for both groups [13]. In another prospective randomized study comparing the use of Contour staplers with linear staplers among 60 patients undergoing mid to low rectal cancer surgery, there were no statistical differences in the incidence of postoperative complications (such as anastomosis site bleeding, anastomosis leak, wound complication or removal of Foley catheter) between Contour and a conventional linear stapler. However, the pelvic contamination rate was significantly higher in the linear stapler group (20.0%) than in the Contour group (3.3%, p=0.044). In addition, although it did not reach statistical significance, the Contour group had a longer distal resection margin than the linear stapler group [14].

In a similar study of 120 lower anterior resection patients comparing a double stapling anastomosis (Contour stapler) group to a single stapling anastomosis group (purse-string suture) - the double anastomosis group had a higher sphincter preserving rate compared to the single anastomosis group (98% vs 82.9%, p<0.05). It was concluded that Contour with double stapling technique can potentially simplify and shorten the procedure compared to single stapling technique [15]. Finally, a study of 333 patients with ulcerative colitis who underwent Ileal Pouch-Anal Anastomosis (IPAA) surgery, the use of either Contour staplers or another commercially-available anastomotic stapler with a double-stapling technique was associated with a lower risk for cuffitis than a single-stapling technique. It was concluded that the incidence of cuffitis after stapled IPAA could be minimized by performing the anastomosis as low as possible, a procedure that can be accomplished with a modern stapler device such as Contour. Incidence of cuffitis was significantly higher in the single-stapling technique than in the double-stapling procedures (31.6% vs 14.4%, p<0.05) [16].

3.2.Non-Comparative Studies

A total of eight studies were identified through this systematic review that provided some assessment of the clinical effect of the use of Contour, without comparing that with another relevant device. About half of these studies primarily reported on the ease of use of the Contour device in anatomy that was harder to access and operate in. A study in Japan, applying Contour in laparoscopic rectal cancer resection, reported that this stapler reduces misfiring that could result from incomplete cutting. With Contour, the transected rectum is thoroughly stapled to the lateral tissue edge, which cannot be accomplished with conventional staplers, as the retaining pin is located within the staple line [17]. In another study of 26 laparoscopic rectal transections, surgeons reported that in all cases but one, the placement of Contour was feasible without the level of difficulty typically experienced with a traditional device [18]. Similarly, using a double stapling technique with Contour in low anterior resection of rectal cancer, anastomoses were highly successful (120/122, 98%) and the stapler was assessed as having exceptional maneuverability and ease of use [19]. Yet another study reported that laparoscopic rectal cancer transections were performed with Contour in 34 subjects, and successful transections were accomplished for all cases [20].

Along with the relative ease of use, the remaining non-comparative studies also reported on potential clinical benefits of low rates of surgical complications that were observed in association with the use of the Contour device. In a study of 65 patients undergoing ultra-low anterior resections for low rectal cancer, Contour showed the advantage of complete cutting, safe closure and low anastomotic leak rate (2/65, 3.65%) [21]. In another study, when used in 40 subjects with rectal cancer undergoing ultra-low anterior resection, Contour was successful in limiting bleeding of the anastomotic stoma, stenosis and anal incontinence [22]. Using a combination of an endo-Satinsky clamp rectal transection method and Contour for 12 rectal cancer patients, resection of the lower rectum was possible in another study, in adverse anatomical conditions through a small incision. The combination technique in all cases could accomplish complete rectal transection with only one firing using one cartridge and with no major complications [23]. Finally, in a review of 45 laparoscopic lower rectal resections, Contour was used to successfully perform a lower section of the rectum in all cases, with low rates of intraoperative and postoperative staple line bleeding [24].

4.Discussion

The curved linear staplers along with conventional linear staplers have been a standard of care in colorectal cancer surgery. This study reviewed clinical trials, cohort studies and case reports that were published in peer-reviewed journals globally with an aim to provide an up-to-date assessment of the effectiveness of the Contour Curved Cutter Stapler in colorectal cancer surgery performed either laparoscopically or by using an open surgical approach. In general, effectiveness of a surgical stapling device is dependent upon multiple factors: heights and sizes of staples, thickness and compressibility of tissues in the body, device-tissue interactions, inherent patient differences and the surgeon’s familiarity with device and understanding of optimal stapler-tissue interaction [25]. In gastrointestinal tract surgery, different types of anastomotic methods are regarded as one of the major risk factors to influence complications including anastomotic leak. Anastomotic leak after colorectal surgery is the most serious complication that can increase morbidity and mortality rates significantly, and result in greater healthcare utilization. A retrospective cohort study using the US hospital administrative data reported anastomotic leaks was associated with additional hospital stay of 7.3 days and additional hospital costs of $24,129 [26].

When compared with hand-suturing, a safe and effective mechanical stapling device like Contour could offer sizable clinical and economic benefits. A recent literature review and meta-analysis involving eight randomized clinical trials with a total of 1,172 patients with ileocolic anastomoses found that the mechanical stapling group had lower (2.4%) anastomotic leaks compared to the hand-sewn group (6.1%). The researchers reported that mechanical stapling instead of hand-sewn suturing could result in approximately $11,000 of cost saving per patient for a hospital through a value analysis model considering OR time cost, reoperation cost, readmission cost, etc. [12]. Among different stapling techniques, double stapling using a conventional linear stapler or Contour has shown better outcomes compared to single stapling technique with use of purse-string forceps [16]. However, anastomosis following rectal resection presents additional challenges to surgeons. It is difficult to place the conventional straight, linear staplers at right angles to the rectum in the deep and narrow pelvis especially in males, or in the presence of a voluminous tumor. These technical constraints often result in additional stapler firings and ‘dog ear’ formation that may cause anastomotic leak [24].

The Contour stapler was developed to cut and staple deep in the pelvis perpendicular to the rectum. The availability of 45-mm linear staplers should theoretically enable placement further down the pelvis; however, due to the narrowness of the pelvis, a conventional 45-mm stapler is unable to properly secure the distal rectum. The design of Contour conforms to a patient’s natural anatomy, thereby allowing access deeper in the pelvis during a low anterior resection without handle obstruction. The Contour device is reloadable and may be fired up to 6 times in a single procedure [14]. Our review of 4 comparative studies and 8 non-comparative studies demonstrate that Contour performed at minimum on a par with conventional linear staplers in major postoperative complications such as anastomosis leak, anastomosis site bleeding or wound complications, and showed significantly better outcomes in inflammation at the anal transition zone or anus preserving compared to single-stapling technique. For example, Lee et al. [14] in their prospective randomized trial for rectal cancer surgery showed that the patients treated with Contour had significantly lower pelvic contamination rate compared to the patients with the linear stapler. Similarly, Wenqi and colleagues [13] determined that the Contour patient group was associated with higher anus preservation rate as compared with the linear stapler patient group. These results may be owing to several features of the Contour device. Contour with parallel jaw closure is designed to help compress tissue evenly within the jaws of the instrument for consistent staple formation, which can produce less tissue movement along the cut line. Thus, Contour can capture the rectum in a single firing when tissue fits comfortably within the jaws of the device. In addition, Contour with its unique curved head design enables surgeons to fit deeper in the pelvis and delivers a 17% longer cut line compared to the conventional 45 mm linear stapler.

Although stapling devices and techniques for colorectal or coloanal anastomoses have been improved, laparoscopic anastomosis is still technically difficult, and the rate of leakage is high [17]. Colorectal surgeons express that with presently available laparoscopic devices, resection of the low rectum in selected patients (males and mid-third rectal tumors) is often difficult [18]. Contour has shown to be an effective and reliable alternative instrument when rectal resection with the current laparoscopic stapler may be difficult. Of the 12 studies reviewed, five studies investigated use of Contour in laparoscopic surgery, and demonstrated the device performed successful resections without major complications. In a study of laparoscopic lower rectal resections, it was noted that Contour has characteristics to reduce misfiring risk resulting from incomplete cutting or an overlapping staple line and the formation of dog ears, and concluded that the curved stapler enables resection of the lower rectum to be easily performed without giving up the benefits of laparoscopic access [24]. Two studies in Japan reported that the authors encountered no issues with using Contour for laparoscopic rectal resection and found no morbidity related to anastomosis or no major complications including anastomotic leak [17,23]. Similarly, Targarona et al., [18] reported that Contour provides an ideal closure and division of the rectal stump, not only in open, but also in laparoscopic procedures. They stated that Contour was effective particularly for those patients whose lower pelvis was too small in diameter to achieve a safe distal margin or who require a restorative proctocolectomy and an ileoanal J-pouch anastomosis.

While this review of the literature generally finds the use of Contour in colorectal surgery to be both clinically and potentially economically beneficial, there are a few potential limitations that need to be taken into account while using it for decision making. First, this study undertook a systematic literature review methodology to cover existing studies in peer-reviewed journals at a global level, but owing to the high specificity of inclusion criteria, a total of only 12 articles were identified and included in the study. Second, most of the selected studies were single centered and had small sample sizes. And finally, a few selected articles also primarily presented commentary based on the authors’ previous anecdotal experiences with the Contour device, rather than the actual findings from their study. As such, assessment of effectiveness and safety of the device was made from a relatively small evidence base and the findings should be interpreted with these limitations in mind.

5.Conclusion

The Contour Curved Cutter Stapler along with conventional linear stapler has now been used as standard of care in open colorectal surgery over the last decade. This systematic review of the literature suggests that Contour continues to be a safe, effective, and reliable cutting and stapling device for use in open and laparoscopic colorectal procedures. It provides complete cutting and safe closure while potentially simplifying the resection process and avoiding surgical complications.

If you want to learn more, please visit our website bariatric surgical stapler.