Fewer leaks1,†,‡

No batteries required

The only open stapling portfolio that delivers the confidence of Tri-Staple™ technology

Compared to the two-row Ethicon™* Echelon Circular Powered stapler, the three-row EEA™ circular stapler with Tri-Staple™ technology provides:

  • Greater leak protection1,†,§
  • 140% greater perfusion2,†,Ω
  • 20% greater security3,†,††
  • 78% lower removal forces4,‡‡,§§

Visit the "Evaluating Performance of Circular Staplers Using Comparative Test Methods for Evidence-Based Surgery" publication to learn more about the comparative test methods and results
Learn more

Explore the clinical publications:

Preliminary evaluation of two‑row versus three‑row circular staplers for colorectal anastomosis after rectal resection: a single‑center retrospective analysis

Giuseppe Quero, Claudio Fiorillo, Roberta Menghi, Fausto Rosa, Giuseppe Massimiani, Carlo Alberto Schena, Davide De Sio, Vito Laterza, Chiara Lucinato, Valerio Papa, Vincenzo Tondolo, Sergio Alfieri.

Effectiveness of a new triple-row circular stapler in reducing the risk of colorectal anastomotic leakage: A historical control and propensity score–matched study

Junichi Mazaki, MD, PhDa,* , Kenji Katsumata, MD, PhDa, Tetsuo Ishizaki, MD, PhDa, Noritoshi Fukushima, MD, PhDb, Ryutaro Udo, MD, PhDa, Tomoya Tago, MDa, Kenta Kasahara, MD, PhDa, Hiroshi Kuwabara, MDa, Masanobu Enomoto, MD, PhDa, Yuichi Nagakawa, MD, PhDa, Akihiko Tsuchida, MD, PhDa

Clinical impact of the triple-layered circular stapler for reducing the anastomotic leakage in rectal cancer surgery: Porcine model and multicenter retrospective cohort analysis

Ryota Nakanishi, Yoshiaki Fujimoto, Masahiko Sugiyama, Yuichi Hisamatsu,
Tomonori Nakanoko, Koji Ando, Mitsuhiko Ota, Yasue Kimura, Eiji Oki,
Tomoharu Yoshizumi

Result: anastomotic leak-rate reduction

Two-row staplers vs Tri-Staple™ EEA™

Two-row staplers vs Tri-Staple™ EEA™

Two-row staplers vs Tri-Staple™ EEA™

80%  Fewer Leaks1,†,‡

140% Greater Perfusion2,†,Ω

 

vs. Ethicon™* Circular powered stapler

See the power of Tri-Staple™ Technology

Discover more
References:

† Preclinical results may not correlate with clinical performance in humans.

‡ Based on leak testing in an in vivo canine model comparing TRIEEA25XT to Ethicon™* CDH25P (n = 9; P = 0.023), where 50 mm Hg represented a maximum expected colonic pressure.

§ Based on leak testing in in vivo canine model comparing TRIEEA25XT to Ethicon™* CDH25P (n = 9; P = 0.002), where 50 mm Hg represented a maximum expected colonic pressure.

Ω Compared to the Ethicon Circular™* powered stapler. Based on staple-line vascularity analysis using MicroCT in an in vivo canine model (CDH31P: n = 13; TRIEEA31XT: n = 15. P = 0.007).

†† Based on tensile strength testing comparing TRIEEA31XT and CDH31P (n = 10, P = 0.002).

‡‡ Bench test results may not necessarily be indicative of clinical performance.

§§ Based on testing in simulated tissue media comparing TRIEEA25XT and CDH25P (n =6; P < 0.001).

  1. Based on internal report # RE00365456,, Comparative in vivo leak testing for EEA™ circular staplers with Tri-Staple™ technology (TRIEEA25XT) and Ethicon Echelon Circular™* Powered stapler (CDH25P). Dec. 21, 2021. 
  2. Based on internal report #RE00330708 rev 1, Perfusion analysis for circular staplers comparing EEA™ circular stapler with Tri-Staple™ technology. May 13, 2021. 
  3. Based on internal report #RE00342843, Staple line security test comparing EEA™ circular stapler with Tri-Staple™ technology(TRIEEA31XT) and Echelon Circular™* powered stapler (CDH31P). June 2021. 
  4. Based on internal report #RE00354964, Device removal force for EEA™ circular stapler with Tri-Staple™ technology vs. Echelon Circular™* powered stapler. January 7, 2022.