Anastomotic leakage (AL) is a significant complication after colorectal cancer surgery, with serious clinical and economic consequences. Circular staplers (CSs) with 3 staple rows of different heights may enhance anastomotic integrity and perfusion compared to conventional two-row CSs. The aim of the present study is to compare the short-term outcomes of 2 vs three-row CSs in colorectal anastomosis in case of left hemicolectomy, sigmoidectomy and anterior resection of the rectum for cancer.
Method
This is a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. All consecutive patients with left or sigmoid colon or rectal cancer who underwent elective resection with primary anastomosis from 2013 to 2025 were included. Patients were included in the control or in the intervention group if two-row or three-row CS was used during surgery, respectively. AL rate and its severity grade were compared between groups, and the prognostic impact of stapler type on AL onset was assessed.
Results
One-hundred-thirty-six and 109 patients were included in the control and in the intervention group, respectively. AL rate was significantly higher in the control group in comparison to the intervention group (11.8% vs 3.7%; P = 0.02). Moreover, patients in the control group had significantly longer hospital stays than the intervention group (P = 0.04). On multivariate analysis, the use of the two-row CSs is an independent adverse predictor of AL (Odds Ratio 3.79; P = 0.03).
Conclusion
Based on our findings the use of three-row CS is associated with a lower postoperative AL rate and shorter LOS in comparison to the two-row CS.
WangYLiuYHanGYiBZhuS. The severity of postoperative complications after robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression. PLoS One. 2020;15(10):e0239909. Farag E, ed. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0239909
2.
PaunBCCassieSMacLeanARDixonEBuieWD. Postoperative complications following surgery for rectal cancer. Ann Surg. 2010;251(5):807-818. doi:10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181dae4ed
3.
AngelucciGPSinibaldiGOrsariaPArcudiCColizzaS. Morbidity and mortality after colorectal surgery for cancer. Surg Sci. 2013;04(11):520-524. doi:10.4236/ss.2013.411101
4.
McArdleCSMcMillanDCHoleDJ. Impact of anastomotic leakage on long-term survival of patients undergoing curative resection for colorectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2005;92(9):1150-1154. doi:10.1002/bjs.5054
5.
ChiarelloMMFransveaPCariatiMAdamsNJBianchiVBrisindaG. Anastomotic leakage in colorectal cancer surgery. Surg Oncol. 2022;40:101708. doi:10.1016/j.suronc.2022.101708
6.
NijssenDJWienholtsKPostmaMJ, et al.The economic impact of anastomotic leakage after colorectal surgery: a systematic review. Tech Coloproctol. 2024;28(1):55. doi:10.1007/s10151-024-02932-4
7.
DiasVECastroPASVDPadilhaHT, et al.Preoperative risk factors associated with anastomotic leakage after colectomy for colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Rev Col Bras Cir. 2022;49:e20223363. doi:10.1590/0100-6991e-20223363-en
8.
DegiuliMElmoreUDeLR, et al.Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after anterior resection for rectal cancer (RALAR study): a nationwide retrospective study of the Italian society of surgical oncology colorectal cancer network collaborative group. Colorectal Dis. 2022;24(3):264-276. doi:10.1111/codi.15997
9.
Martín-ArévaloJPla-MartíVHuntleyD, et al.Two-row, three-row or powered circular stapler, which to choose when performing colorectal anastomosis? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2024;39(1):51. doi:10.1007/s00384-024-04625-8
10.
KimJParkSKimN, et al.Compression automation of circular stapler for preventing compression injury on gastrointestinal anastomosis. Int J Med Robot. 2022;18(3):e2374. doi:10.1002/rcs.2374
AlverdyJC. Biologically inspired gastrointestinal stapler design: “Getting to Zero” complications. Am J Surg. 2023;226(1):48-52. doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2023.01.030
13.
DetryRJKartheuserADelriviereLSabaJKestensPJ. Use of the circular stapler in 1000 consecutive colorectal anastomoses: experience of one surgical team. Surgery. 1995;117(2):140-145. doi:10.1016/S0039-6060(05)80077-7
14.
KawadaKHasegawaSHidaK, et al.Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic low anterior resection with DST anastomosis. Surg Endosc. 2014;28(10):2988-2995. doi:10.1007/s00464-014-3564-0
15.
SadahiroSKameyaTIwaseH, et al.Which technique, circular stapled anastomosis or double stapling anastomosis, provides the optimal size and shape of rectal anastomotic opening?J Surg Res. 1999;86(1):162-166. doi:10.1006/jsre.1999.5701
16.
ScuderiVTroisiRI. Tissue management with tri-staple technology in major and minor laparoscopic liver resections. Int Surg. 2014;99(5):606-611. doi:10.9738/INTSURG-D-13-00101.1
17.
Van VugtJLATegelsJJWDerikxJPMVisschersRGJStootJHMB. First experiences with the radial reload with Tri-stapleTM technology in low rectal surgery. Int J Surg. 2015;14:23-27. doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.12.027
18.
QueroGFiorilloCMenghiR, et al.Preliminary evaluation of two-row versus three-row circular staplers for colorectal anastomosis after rectal resection: a single-center retrospective analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2022;37(12):2501-2510. doi:10.1007/s00384-022-04283-8
19.
BallaASaracenoFRulloM, et al.Protective ileostomy creation after anterior resection of the rectum (PICARR): a decision-making exploring international survey. Updates Surg. 2025;77(3):805-823. doi:10.1007/s13304-025-02111-6
20.
Dean GriffenFKnightCDKnightCD. Results of the double stapling procedure in pelvic surgery. World J Surg. 1992;16(5):866-871. doi:10.1007/BF02066983
21.
ClavienPABarkunJDe OliveiraML, et al.The clavien-dindo classification of surgical complications: Five-year experience. Ann Surg. 2009;250(2):187-196. doi:10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181b13ca2
22.
RahbariNNWeitzJHohenbergerW, et al.Definition and grading of anastomotic leakage following anterior resection of the rectum: a proposal by the International study group of rectal Cancer. Surgery. 2010;147(3):339-351. doi:10.1016/j.surg.2009.10.012
23.
DomenghinoAWalbertCBirrerDLPuhanMAClavienPAOutcome4Medicine consensus group. Consensus recommendations on how to assess the quality of surgical interventions. Nat Med. 2023;29(4):811-822. doi:10.1038/s41591-023-02237-3
24.
American Joint Committee on Cancer. GreeneFLPageDLFlemingID, et al., eds. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. New York: Springer; 2002. doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-3656-4
25.
AlqarniAAljehaimanFAlmousaSAAlmarshadSAAlrzouqFK. The relationship between BMI and postoperative complications among colorectal cancer patients undergoing surgery. Cureus. 2023;15:e48715, Published online 13 November. doi:10.7759/cureus.48715
26.
BursacZGaussCHWilliamsDKHosmerDW. Purposeful selection of variables in logistic regression. Source Code Biol Med. 2008;3(1):17. doi:10.1186/1751-0473-3-17
27.
HealdRJChirMLeicesterRJ. The low stapled anastomosis. Dis Colon Rectum. 1981;24(6):437-444. doi:10.1007/BF02626778
28.
FiorilloCTondoloVBiffoniB, et al.Circular staplers and anastomotic leakage in colorectal surgery: meta-analysis. BJS Open. 2025;9(2):zrae170. doi:10.1093/bjsopen/zrae170
29.
StrassnerHCaulkAReherNPetrescuSVasanjiA. Evaluating performance of circular staplers using comparative test methods for evidence-based surgery. Surg Innov. 2023;30(5):576-585. doi:10.1177/15533506231166447
30.
HasegawaSNakayamaSHidaKKawadaKSakaiY. Effect of Tri-StapleTM technology and slow firing on secure stapling using an endoscopic linear stapler. Dig Surg. 2015;32(5):353-360. doi:10.1159/000437216
31.
SheridanWGLowndesRHYoungHL. Tissue oxygen tension as a predictor of colonic anastomotic healing. Dis Colon Rectum. 1987;30(11):867-871. doi:10.1007/BF02555426
32.
TocchiAMazzoniGFornasariVMicciniMDaddiGTagliacozzoS. Preservation of the inferior mesenteric artery in colorectal resection for complicated diverticular disease. Am J Surg. 2001;182(2):162-167. doi:10.1016/S0002-9610(01)00681-X
33.
AgnesiSVirgilioFFrontaliA, et al.Inferior mesenteric artery preservation techniques in the treatment of diverticular disease: a systematic review of the literature. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2024;39(1):174. doi:10.1007/s00384-024-04746-0
34.
SohnMSchlittHJHornungM, et al.Preservation of the superior rectal artery: influence of surgical technique on anastomotic healing and postoperative morbidity in laparoscopic sigmoidectomy for diverticular disease. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2017;32(7):955-960. doi:10.1007/s00384-017-2792-x
35.
EschbachMSindbergGMGodekML, et al.Micro-CT imaging as a method for comparing perfusion in graduated-height and single-height surgical staple lines. MDER. 2018;11:267-273. doi:10.2147/MDER.S171357
36.
CongZJHuLHBianZQ, et al.Systematic review of anastomotic leakage rate according to an international grading system following anterior resection for rectal cancer. PLoS One. 2013;8(9):e75519, Hold GL, ed. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0075519
37.
WalkerKGBellSWRickardMJFX, et al.Anastomotic leakage is predictive of diminished survival after potentially curative resection for colorectal cancer. Ann Surg. 2004;240(2):255-259. doi:10.1097/01.sla.0000133186.81222.08
38.
GerbasiLSTustumiFSeidVESeaA. Does Tri‐StapleTM technology reduce the risk of anastomotic leakage in colorectal surgery? A propensity score matching analysis. J Surg Oncol. 2024;130(4):830-837. doi:10.1002/jso.27650
39.
WangTSadowskyMBlakneyR, et al.Risk of anastomotic leakage with two-row versus three-row manual circular staplers in colorectal anastomosis: a U.S. cohort study. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2023;38(1):264. doi:10.1007/s00384-023-04552-0
40.
MazakiJKatsumataKIshizakiT, et al.Effectiveness of a new triple-row circular stapler in reducing the risk of colorectal anastomotic leakage: a historical control and propensity score–matched study. Medicine. 2022;101(27):e29325. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000029325
41.
CatarciMGuadagniSMaseduF, et al.Three-versus two-rows circular staplers for left-sided colorectal anastomosis: a propensity score-matched analysis of the iCral 2 and 3 prospective cohorts. Int J Surg. 2023;109:2312-2323, Published online 17 May. doi:10.1097/JS9.0000000000000480
42.
NakanishiRFujimotoYSugiyamaM, et al.Clinical impact of the triple‐layered circular stapler for reducing the anastomotic leakage in rectal cancer surgery: porcine model and multicenter retrospective cohort analysis. Ann Gastroenterol Surg. 2022;6(2):256-264. doi:10.1002/ags3.12516
43.
CaulfieldHHymanNH. Anastomotic leak after low anterior resection: a spectrum of clinical entities. JAMA Surg. 2013;148(2):177-182. doi:10.1001/jamasurgery.2013.413
44.
KimJSChoSYMinBSKimNK. Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic intracorporeal colorectal anastomosis with a double stapling technique. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;209(6):694-701. doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2009.09.021
45.
NaoiDHorieHSadatomoA, et al.The effect of staple height and rectal-wall thickness on anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic low anterior resection. Asian J Surg. 2023;46(4):1577-1582. doi:10.1016/j.asjsur.2022.09.093
46.
MacariMBalthazarEJ. CT of bowel wall thickening: significance and pitfalls of interpretation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;176(5):1105-1116. doi:10.2214/ajr.176.5.1761105
47.
NylundKHauskenTØdegaardSEideGGiljaO. Gastrointestinal wall thickness measured with transabdominal ultrasonography and its relationship to demographic factors in healthy subjects. Ultraschall Med. 2012;33(07):E225-E232. doi:10.1055/s-0031-1299329
48.
KomenNDijkJWLalmahomedZ, et al.After-hours colorectal surgery: a risk factor for anastomotic leakage. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2009;24(7):789-795. doi:10.1007/s00384-009-0692-4
49.
AgnesiSSchiavoMGranataC, et al.Stapler firing count predicts anastomotic leak: a retrospective study on colorectal cancer surgery. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech. 2025;35(12):962-969. doi:10.1177/10926429251389804
50.
BalciscuetaCZBalciscueta ColtellIUribe QuintanaN. Impact of indocyanine green angiography on anastomotic dehiscence rate in colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized studies. Cir Esp. 2025;103(5):268-278. doi:10.1016/j.cireng.2024.06.002
