ArticleSurgical endoscopy2015
Treatment of foregut fistula with biologic plugs.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Combined endoscopic-percutaneous treatment of upper gastrointestinal enterocutaneous fistula using vacuum therapy and resorbable plug insertion (Vac-Plug).Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Successful treatment of enteroatmospheric fistulas in combination with negative pressure wound therapy: Experience on 3 cases and literature review.International wound journal · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEnteric fistulas are a recognised complication of various diseases and surgical interventions. Non-operative medical management will result in closure of 60-70% of all fistulas over a six- to eight-week period, those that fail non-operative management will require operative intervention if they are to close. We present a series of upper gastrointestinal fistula managed with endoscopic intervention and insertion of biological fistula plug over a 3-year period across three Hospitals, both public and private, in Western Australia.
methodsOver a three-year period, 14 patients were referred for treatment of acute or persistent foregut fistulas. All fistulas were managed with endoscopic intervention and insertion of a porcine small intestine sub-mucosa plug (Biodesign (®) Cook medical Inc., Bloomington, IN, USA). No patients with fistula were excluded. Data were collected on patient demographics and underlying diagnosis. The biological plugs were deployed using three different endoscopic techniques (direct deployment via the endoscope, catheter-assisted endoscopic deployment, or a pull through via a guide wire using a rendezvous technique).
resultsFourteen patients with foregut fistula were treated using biological plugs. The age of the fistulas treated ranged from 14 days to 3 years. The fistulas were predominantly gastric in origin (eight cases). Three oesophageal, one gastro-pleural-bronchial, and two jejunal fistulas were also managed using this technique. Of the 14 fistulas treated using this method, 13 resolved following the treatment. Median time to closure of the fistula was 2 days (range 1-120 days). Three patients required more than one intervention to complete closure.
conclusionBiological plugs offer a further option for management of the traditionally difficult foregut fistula, without major morbidity associated with other treatment modalities. It is limited to the ability to deploy the plug endoscopically.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.