ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract2017
Routine Radiologic Contrast Agent Examination After Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer Is Not Useful.
Article in Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03733639 (The Use of Fibrin Glue Sealant), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 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.
The Use of Fibrin Glue Sealant (Tisseel®) as a Reinforcement of Esophagojejunal Anastomoses Will Decrease the Rate of Anastomotic Leak.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Normal and Abnormal Postoperative Imaging Findings after Gastric Oncologic and Bariatric Surgery.Korean journal of radiology · 2020Review
- Laparoscopic Resection for Adenocarcinoma of the Stomach or Gastroesophageal Junction Improves Postoperative Outcomes: a Propensity Score Matching Analysis.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2019Article
- Early postoperative imaging after non-bariatric gastric resection: a primer for radiologists.Insights into imaging · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many studies have showed that routine upper gastrointestinal contrast agent examinations (RCE) for testing the patency of the anastomosis after esophagectomy or the stapler line after sleeve gastrectomy cannot be recommended due to low sensitivity. However, the clinical value of RCE after gastrectomy for gastric cancer remains unclear. We have retrospectively analyzed the clinical course of 377 consecutive patients who underwent gastrectomy for gastric cancer in our institution between 2005 and 2015. To date, we have performed a RCE on the fifth postoperative day before removal of the nasogastric tube and return to oral intake. In total, we have observed 14 anastomotic leaks (AL) (4%) after oncologic gastrectomy. Four AL (28.6%) occurred before the scheduled RCE on the fifth postoperative day (POD) and 7 (50%) late AL after POD 5. Three patients (21.4%) without any clinical symptoms were diagnosed by the RCE. Sensitivity of RCE was 50%. A significant percentage of patients with AL was diagnosed by computed tomography (CT) of the abdomen (50%). The standard therapy for AL after gastrectomy was endoscopic stent placement (n = 11), including three cases of stenting after surgical revision. Based on our data, we cannot recommend a RCE after gastrectomy for gastric cancer. The majority of AL occurs before or after a RCE and the sensitivity of the examination is low. In case of clinical suspicion of AL, a CT scan (with oral contrast agent) should be performed. In unclear cases, endoscopy is the preferable method providing the option of direct treatment.
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.