Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26558909›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2016

Covered stents in cervical anastomoses following esophagectomy.

Emily Speer, Christy M Dunst, Amber Shada, Kevin M Reavis, Lee L Swanström

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. ChestJournal of thoracic disease · 2023
    Article
  4. Review
  5. 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 · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Endoscopic management of esophageal leaks.Journal of thoracic disease · 2017
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Effect of a paclitaxel-eluting metallic stent on rabbit esophagus.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2016
    Article
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Emily SpeerDepartment of Surgery, Providence Portland Medical Center, 4805 NE Glisan St., Suite 6N60, Portland, OR, 97213, USA.
Christy M DunstDepartment of Surgery, Providence Portland Medical Center, 4805 NE Glisan St., Suite 6N60, Portland, OR, 97213, USA. cdunst@orclinic.com.
Amber ShadaDepartment of Surgery, Providence Portland Medical Center, 4805 NE Glisan St., Suite 6N60, Portland, OR, 97213, USA.
Kevin M ReavisDepartment of Surgery, Providence Portland Medical Center, 4805 NE Glisan St., Suite 6N60, Portland, OR, 97213, USA.
Lee L SwanströmDepartment of Surgery, Providence Portland Medical Center, 4805 NE Glisan St., Suite 6N60, Portland, OR, 97213, USA.
Institute for Learning Innovation · USProvidence Portland Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

EsophagectomyStentsAnastomotic LeakChemoradiotherapyEsophageal StenosisFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPostoperative ComplicationsProsthesis FailureRetrospective StudiesAnastomotic strictureComplicationsEsophageal leakEsophagectomyStent

Identifiers

PMID26558909
OpenAlexW2157357520

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.