ArticlePediatric surgery international2015
Impact of an external lengthening procedure on the outcome of long-gap esophageal atresia at our hospitals.
Article in Pediatric surgery international, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Long-gap esophageal atresia: gastric transposition or esophageal lengthening with delayed primary anastomosis? A systematic review.Pediatric surgery international · 2024Pooled it
- A new esophageal elongation technique for long-gap esophageal atresia: in vitro comparison of myotomy techniques.Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo demonstrate the outcome of external lengthening for long-gap esophageal atresia (LGEA) at our hospitals.
methodsFive patients with LGEA underwent external lengthening between 2010 and 2014 (group A), and 11 patients with LGEA underwent other lengthening techniques between 1990 and 2011 (group B). We compared the procedure and outcome between these two groups.
resultsThe mean birth weight was 2001 g in group A and 2485 g in group B (p = 0.06). The mean age at esophageal reconstruction was 28 days in group A and 227 days in group B (p = 0.03). Although primary esophageal anastomosis without myotomy was feasible in all patients in group A, a myotomy was needed for primary esophageal anastomosis in half of the patients in group B. Anastomotic leakage occurred in none in group A and in six patients in group B (p = 0.03). The mean age at the establishment of full oral feeding was 76 days in group A and 686 days in group B (p = 0.009).
conclusionExternal traction for LGEA can effectively lengthen the esophagus to enable primary anastomosis at an earlier age. This may facilitate oral intake.
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.