A real-world study evaluating the safety and utility of a two-row stapler reload on pulmonary vasculature

Sandeep J Khandhar; Neetha P Desai; Sylvain Anselme; David D Shersher; Christopher W Seder; Pablo G Sanchez

doi:10.21037/jtd-24-179

A real-world study evaluating the safety and utility of a two-row stapler reload on pulmonary vasculature

J Thorac Dis. 2024 Jun 30;16(6):3753-3763. doi: 10.21037/jtd-24-179. Epub 2024 Jun 14.

Authors

Sandeep J Khandhar¹, Neetha P Desai², Sylvain Anselme³, David D Shersher^{4

5}, Christopher W Seder⁶, Pablo G Sanchez⁷

Affiliations

¹ Division of Thoracic Surgery, Virginia Cancer Specialists, Inova Fairfax Hospital, Fairfax, VA, USA.
² Clinical Research and Medical Sciences, Medtronic, North Haven, CT, USA.
³ Global Clinical Data Solutions, Medtronic, Paris, France.
⁴ Division of Thoracic Surgery, Cooper University Hospital, Camden, NJ, USA.
⁵ Division of Thoracic Surgery, Cooper Medical School of Rowan University, Camden, NJ, USA.
⁶ Department of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA.
⁷ Department of Thoracic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Physicians, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.

Abstract

Background: Endoscopic staplers are common surgical devices used for the ligation and division of vasculature in thoracic procedures. When a stapler ligates and divides pulmonary vasculature, potentially catastrophic intraoperative bleeding at the staple-line may occur. The aim of this study was to confirm the safety and discuss the utility of a two-row stapler reload, by assessing the incidence of clinically necessary intraoperative hemostatic intervention when applied to pulmonary vasculature in real-world applications.

Methods: This study was designed as a prospective non-comparative registry study conducted in seven centers across the United States, to confirm the safety and performance of Signia™ Small Diameter Reloads (SDR) when used for indicated thoracic surgical procedures. The primary endpoint was the incidence of hemostatic intervention related to the ligation and division of pulmonary arteries and veins. A five-point Likert scale scored hemostasis of each SDR staple-line. Secondary endpoints included the incidence of device-related only adverse events (AEs), device deficiencies, and procedure-related hospital readmission up to and including 30 days post operation.

Results: SDR was fired 302 times across pulmonary vasculature in 120 subjects. Three firings required clinically necessary hemostatic intervention for an intervention rate of 0.99% (3 of 302 firings). Moreover, 97.5% (117 of 120 subjects) had intact SDR staple-lines regardless of surgical access or stapler handle preference. Only 4 (3.3%) thoracoscopic and robotic procedures converted to open, but none were due to SDR staple-lines. There was no statistically significant difference between the Likert score of transected arteries compared to veins (P=0.61). There were no device deficiencies or device-only related AEs reported.

Conclusions: In this study, the two-row stapler reloads demonstrated favorable safety and efficacy profiles when fired across hilar vessels in the thoracic space with a 99% hemostatic rate, independent of surgical access and stapler handle preference.

Keywords: Surgical stapler; hemostasis; pulmonary vasculature.