Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28439770›Full record

SynthesisJournal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract2017

Gastric Preconditioning in Advance of Esophageal Resection-Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Patrick Heger, Susanne Blank, Markus K Diener, Alexis Ulrich, Thomas Schmidt, Markus W Büchler, André L Mihaljevic

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Pilot Trial on Ischemic Conditioning of the Gastric Conduit in Esophageal Cancer: Feasibility and Impact on Anastomotic Leakage (TIGOAL-I).Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2024
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Different gastric tubes in esophageal reconstruction during esophagectomy.Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society · 2023
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Ulcer Scarring in the Gastric Conduit Is a Risk Factor for Anastomotic Leakage After Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2023
    Article
  14. Barriers and Facilitators in Implementation of an Esophagectomy Care Pathway: a Qualitative Analysis.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Laparoscopic ischaemic conditioning of the gastric conduit prior to a hybrid mckeown oesophagectomy may not decrease the risk of anastomotic leak.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2021
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: definitions, diagnostics, and treatment.Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus · 2021
    Review
  19. Review
  20. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Patrick HegerDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Susanne BlankDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Markus K DienerDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Alexis UlrichDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Thomas SchmidtDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Markus W BüchlerDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
André L MihaljevicDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. andre.mihaljevic@med.uni-heidelberg.de.
University Hospital Heidelberg · DEGerman Society of Surgery · DEHeidelberg University · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAnastomotic leakage is one of the most severe complications following esophageal resection. Among other strategies, gastric ischemic preconditioning has been proposed to improve anastomotic integrity. The aim of this systematic review is to investigate whether gastric preconditioning has influence on peri- or postoperative outcomes after esophageal resection.

methodsA systematic literature search was performed to identify studies comparing gastric preconditioning with non-preconditioned patients for any indication of esophageal resection. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted for main outcomes.

resultsGastric preconditioning did not reduce anastomotic leakages (OR 0.76; 95%-CI 0.51 to 1.13; p = 0.18), anastomotic strictures (OR 1.10; 95%-CI 0.58 to 2.10; p = 0.76;), major complications (OR 1.14; 95%-CI 0.60 to 2.14; p = 0.69), or in-hospital mortality (OR 0.62; 95%-CI 0.28 to 1.40; p = 0.25). However, preconditioning reduced the rate of severe leaks requiring reoperation (OR 0.20; 95%-CI 0.08 to 0.53; p = 0.001). Increasing the period between preconditioning and esophageal resection over 2 weeks did not reduce anastomotic leakage compared to shorter waiting times (OR 0.65; 95%-CI 0.38 to 1.13; p = 0.13).

conclusionWith current evidence, gastric preconditioning does not seem to reduce overall rates of anastomotic leakage after esophageal resection but seems to reduce severity of leakages.

Indexed as

Ischemic PreconditioningAnastomosis, SurgicalAnastomotic LeakEsophageal NeoplasmsEsophagectomyEsophagusHospital MortalityHumansReoperationStomachAnastomotic leakEsophageal neoplasmsIschemic preconditioning

Identifiers

PMID28439770
OpenAlexW2609915931

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.