ArticleSurgical endoscopy2016
Covered stents in cervical anastomoses following esophagectomy.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Stents and Emerging Alternatives in Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Comprehensive Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- VAC-Stent in the Treatment of Post-Esophagectomy Anastomotic Leaks: A New "Kid on the Block" Who Marries the Best of Old Techniques-A Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- ChestJournal of thoracic disease · 2023Article
- The Use of Esophageal Stents in the Management of Postoperative Fistulas-Current Status, Clinical Outcomes and Perspectives-Review.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Treatment of anastomotic leak after esophagectomy: insights of an international case vignette survey and expert discussions.Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus · 2022Article
- Endoscopic vacuum therapy for post-esophagectomy anastomotic dehiscence as rescue treatment: a single center case series.Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society · 2022Article
- Stent Applications for Palliative Treatment in Advanced Stage Esophageal Cancers.Gastroenterology research and practice · 2021Article
- Endoscopic management of gastrointestinal leaks and fistulae: What option do we have?World journal of gastroenterology · 2020Review
- Management of anastomotic leaks after esophagectomy and gastric pull-up.Journal of thoracic disease · 2020Review
- Treatment of refractory post-esophagectomy anastomotic esophageal strictures using temporary fully covered esophageal metal stenting compared to repeated bougie dilation: results of a randomized controlled trial.Endoscopy international open · 2019Article
- Endoscopic management of esophageal leaks.Journal of thoracic disease · 2017Review
- Efficacy of endoscopic management of leak after foregut surgery with endoscopic covered self-expanding metal stents (SEMS).Surgical endoscopy · 2017Article
- Effect of a paclitaxel-eluting metallic stent on rabbit esophagus.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAnastomotic complications after esophagectomy are relatively frequent. The off-label use of self-expanding covered metal stents has been shown to be an effective initial treatment for leaks, but there is a paucity of literature regarding their use in cervical esophagogastric anastomoses. We reviewed our outcomes with anastomotic stenting after esophagectomy with cervical esophagogastric reconstruction.
methodsAll stents placed across cervical anastomoses following esophagectomy from 2004 to 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. Indications for surgery and stent placement were collected. For patients with serial stents, each stent event was evaluated separately and as part of its series. Success was defined as resolution of indicated anastomotic problem for at least 90 days. Complications were defined as development of stent-related problems.
resultsTwenty-three patients had a total of 63 stents placed (16 % prophylactic, 38 % leak, 46 % stricture). Sixty percent of patients had successful resolution of their initial anastomotic problem; 67 % required more than one stent. Strictures and leaks healed in 27 and 70 % of patients, respectively, at a median of 55.5 days. Stent-related complications occurred in 78 % of patients. Complications (per stent event) included 62 % migration, 11 % clinically significant tissue overgrowth, 8 % minor erosion (ulcers), and 8 % major erosion. Stents placed for stricture were more likely to result in complications, especially migration (76.7 vs. 48.5 %, p = 0.02). Preoperative chemoradiation was a significant risk factor for erosion (22.5 vs. 4.3 %, p = 0.05), but not for overall complications. Patients with major erosions had longer stent duration compared to those without (92 vs. 36 days, p = 0.14). DISCUSSION: Although stents are effective at controlling post-esophagectomy anastomotic leaks, they are not effective for treating strictures. Stents have high complication rates, but most are minor. Chemoradiation is a risk factor for stent erosion. Caution should be used when stent duration exceeds 2-3 months due to the risk of erosion.
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.