Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24917205›Full record

ArticleGeneral thoracic and cardiovascular surgery2014

Feasibility of esophageal reconstruction using a pedicled jejunum with intrathoracic esophagojejunostomy in the upper mediastinum for esophageal cancer.

Itasu Ninomiya, Kouichi Okamoto, Katsunobu Oyama, Hironori Hayashi, Tomoharu Miyashita, Hidehiro Tajima, Hirohisa Kitagawa, Sachio Fushida, Takashi Fujimura, Tetsuo Ohta

Abstract readEvaluation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Alternative conduits for esophageal replacement.Annals of cardiothoracic surgery · 2017
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Itasu NinomiyaGastroenterologic Surgery, Department of Oncology, Division of Cancer Medicine, Graduate School of Medical Science, Kanazawa University, 13-1 Takaramachi, Kanazawa, Ishikawa, 920-8641, Japan, nino@staff.kanazawa-u.ac.jp.
Kouichi Okamoto
Katsunobu Oyama
Hironori Hayashi
Tomoharu Miyashita
Hidehiro Tajima
Hirohisa Kitagawa
Sachio Fushida
Takashi Fujimura
Tetsuo Ohta
Kanazawa University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveAn alternative conduit is needed when the gastric tube cannot be used as an esophageal substitute for reconstruction after esophagectomy. We adopted pedicle jejunal reconstruction with intrathoracic anastomosis in the upper mediastinum under such circumstances. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of this technique.

methodsTwo hundred and ten patients with esophageal cancer underwent esophagectomy and reconstruction from 1998 to 2013. Among them, 6 patients underwent colon interposition (colon group) and 13 underwent jejunum reconstruction (jejunum group) including 8 thoracoscopic anastomosis. The operative results of both groups were compared with those of 191 gastric tube reconstructions (stomach group).

resultsThe operative times in the colon and jejunum groups were significantly longer than that in the stomach group (P = 0.001 and P = 0.018, respectively). The colon group showed more operative blood loss and more frequent anastomotic leakage and ischemic stenosis of the conduit than did the stomach group (1605 vs. 530 g, P = 0.007; 50 vs. 12.6 %, P = 0.035; 16.7 vs. 0 %, P = 0.03, respectively). There was no anastomotic leakage, conduit necrosis and mortality in the jejunum group. Ischemic stenosis of the conduit occurred more frequently in jejunum group than in the stomach group (23.1 vs. 0 %, P < 0.001). However, the stenosis could be managed safely with endoscopic treatment. Patient survival in the colon and jejunum groups was consistent with that in the stomach group.

conclusionsPedicle jejunal reconstruction with intrathoracic anastomosis can be performed safely under thoracotomy or thoracoscopic surgery when stomach cannot be used as an esophageal substitute after esophagectomy.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overAnastomosis, SurgicalEsophageal NeoplasmsEsophagectomyEsophagoplastyEsophagostomyFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansJejunostomyJejunumMaleMediastinumMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID24917205
OpenAlexW1967306182

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.