ReviewPediatric surgery international2017
Surgical techniques for esophageal replacement in children.
Review in Pediatric surgery international, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk factors and prevention and treatment methods of anastomotic stricture after esophageal atresia repair: a literature review.Pediatric surgery international · 2025Review
- Long-term outcomes after colon interposition for esophageal replacement: a case series of four patients from a single centre.The Pan African medical journal · 2025Article
- Colorectal adenocarcinoma of the interposed colon after esophagectomy in infancy: a case report.Journal of surgical case reports · 2024Article
- Esophageal replacement in children - 27 years of experience in a University Hospital.Revista do Colegio Brasileiro de Cirurgioes · 2024Article
- Long-gap esophageal atresia: is native esophagus preservation always possible?Frontiers in pediatrics · 2024Review
- Regenerative medicine: current research and perspective in pediatric surgery.Pediatric surgery international · 2023Review
- Long-term follow-up after retrosternal ileocolic esophagoplasty in two cases of long-gap esophageal atresia: why it is still a valid option as a rescue strategy.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2023Article
- Esophagus tissue engineering: from decellularization to in vivo recellularization in two sites.Cell and tissue banking · 2022Article
- How to Care for Patients with EA-TEF: The Known and the Unknown.Current gastroenterology reports · 2017Review
- Anastomotic Strictures after Esophageal Atresia Repair: Incidence, Investigations, and Management, Including Treatment of Refractory and Recurrent Strictures.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2017Review
- Long-term Outcomes of Esophageal Replacement in Children: A Multicenter Study by the Indian Association of Pediatric Surgeons.Journal of Indian Association of Pediatric SurgeonsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeSurgical techniques for esophageal replacement (ER) in children include colon interposition, gastric tube, gastric transposition, and jejunal interposition. This review evaluates the merits and demerits of each.
methodSurgical techniques, complications, and outcome of ER are reviewed over last seven decades.
resultsColon interposition is the time-tested procedure with minimal and less serious complications. Long-term complications include reflux, halitosis, colonic segment dilatation, and anastomotic stricture, sometimes requiring surgical interventions especially for dilatation and reflux. Gastric tube is technically more risky, and associated with early serious complications like prolonged leak in neck or mediastinum, graft necrosis, and ischemia leading to stricture of the tube. Long-term results are good. Gastric transposition is much simpler, can be performed in emergency and in newborns. It involves a single anastomosis in the neck. Post-operative complications include gastric stasis, bile reflux, restricted growth, and decreased pulmonary functional capacity. Jejunal interposition has not been used extensively due to short mesentery but long-term results are good in expert hands.
conclusionColon is the most preferred and safest organ for ER. Stomach is a vascular and muscular organ with lower risk of ischemia. Gastric tube is a demanding technique. Jejunum or ileum is alternative for redo cases.
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.