Simper Steven C, Erzinger Joanna M, Smith Sherman C
Rocky Mountain Associated Physicians, Salt Lake City, Utah 84124, USA.
Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2007 Jul-Aug;3(4):446-50; discussion 450-1. doi: 10.1016/j.soard.2007.02.008. Epub 2007 Apr 2.
Only one previous study has evaluated the clinical safety of the 2 laparoscopic linear stapling devices available. Our study compared these staplers using laparoscopic gastric bypass as the standard procedure.
A total of 400 consecutive patients were prospectively studied. Group A (200 patients) underwent gastric bypass with the Endo-GIA Universal 6-row stapler (Autosuture) used, and group B (200 patients) underwent the procedure with the Ethicon 6-row stapler used. The measured parameters included stapler misfires, staple line bleeding, staple line leaks, unexplained gastrointestinal bleeding, unexplained intra-abdominal bleeding, total bleeding events, and total adverse events.
Both groups were similar in preoperative body mass index, age, and gender. Both groups had a single staple line leak (0.5%; P = 1.0). Three (0.25% of staple firings) misfires occurred in group B. No misfires occurred in group A (P = .25). Gastrointestinal bleeding, staple line bleeding, and unexplained intra-abdominal bleeding occurred in 6 (3%), 2 (1%), and 5 (2.5%) patients in group A and in 1 (0.5%), 0 (0%), and 2 (1%) patients in group B (P = .12, P = .5, and P = .45, respectively). Total bleeding events occurred in 13 patients (6.5%) in group A and in 3 patients (1.5%) in group B (P = 0.019). The total number of patients with an adverse event was 14 (7%) in group A and 7 (3.5%) in group B (P = .18).
The results of our study have shown that the Ethicon 6-row stapler had more misfires and the Autosuture Endo-GIA 6-row stapler resulted in more bleeding complications. Only the difference in total bleeding events reached statistical significance but the difference in the total number of adverse events was not statistically significant. Therefore, in our experience both devices were equally safe and effective.
此前仅有一项研究评估了现有的两种腹腔镜线性缝合器械的临床安全性。我们的研究以腹腔镜胃旁路手术作为标准术式,对这两种缝合器进行了比较。
对连续400例患者进行前瞻性研究。A组(200例患者)使用Endo - GIA Universal 6排缝合器(自动缝合器)进行胃旁路手术,B组(200例患者)使用Ethicon 6排缝合器进行该手术。测量参数包括缝合器击发失败、钉合线出血、钉合线渗漏、不明原因的胃肠道出血、不明原因的腹腔内出血、总出血事件及总不良事件。
两组患者术前体重指数、年龄及性别相似。两组均有1例钉合线渗漏(0.5%;P = 1.0)。B组发生3次击发失败(占钉合次数的0.25%)。A组未发生击发失败(P = 0.25)。A组有6例(3%)、2例(1%)和5例(2.5%)患者发生胃肠道出血、钉合线出血及不明原因的腹腔内出血,B组分别有1例(0.5%)、0例(0%)和2例(1%)患者发生上述情况(P分别为0.12、0.5和0.45)。A组13例患者(6.5%)发生总出血事件,B组3例患者(1.5%)发生总出血事件(P = 0.019)。A组有14例患者(7%)发生不良事件,B组有7例患者(3.5%)发生不良事件(P = 0.18)。
我们的研究结果表明,Ethicon 6排缝合器击发失败更多,而自动缝合器Endo - GIA 6排缝合器导致的出血并发症更多。仅总出血事件的差异具有统计学意义,而总不良事件数量的差异无统计学意义。因此,根据我们的经验,两种器械同样安全有效。