ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2017
A non-randomized retrospective observational study on the subcutaneous esophageal reconstruction after esophagectomy: is it feasible in high-risk patients?
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Laparoscopic creation of a retrosternal route for gastric conduit reconstruction.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Dislocation of the gastric conduit reconstructed via the posterior mediastinal route is a significant risk factor for anastomotic disorder after McKeown esophagectomy.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2022Article
- Robotic substernal esophageal bypass and reconstruction with gastric conduit-frequently overlooked minimally invasive option.Journal of visualized surgery · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEsophageal reconstruction after esophagectomy is a complex procedure with high morbidity and mortality. Anastomotic leakage is more severe and frequent in patients with preoperative comorbidities and may present with septic conditions. Considering the possibility of an easier management of such cases, we evaluated the safety and feasibility of subcutaneous esophageal reconstruction in patients with high operative risks.
methodsWe performed a non-randomized retrospective observational study on the 75 (subcutaneous: 21, intrathoracic: 54) esophageal cancer patients who underwent esophageal reconstruction either through subcutaneous or intrathoracic route between January 2003 and February 2015. Preoperative data including the estimated reasons for the selection of the subcutaneous route were obtained from medical charts. Clinical outcomes were evaluated and compared between the two groups.
resultsThe mean postoperative hospital stay was longer in the subcutaneous group than the overall group. Anastomotic leakage occurred more frequently in the subcutaneous group [10 (47.6%)
conclusionsSubcutaneous esophageal reconstruction in high-risk patients showed a higher rate of anastomotic leakage. However, easier correction without fatal septic conditions could be obtained by primary repair or flap reconstruction resulting in lower perioperative mortality. Therefore, esophageal reconstruction through the subcutaneous route is not recommended as a routine primary option. However, in highly selected patients with unfavorable preoperative comorbidities or intraoperative findings, especially those with poor blood supply to the graft, graft hematoma or edema, or gross tumor invasion to surrounding tissues, esophageal reconstruction through the subcutaneous route may carefully be considered as an alternative to the conventional surgical techniques.
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.