ArticleObesity surgery2018
Inversion Technique for the Removal of Partially Covered Self-Expandable Metallic Stents.
Article in Obesity surgery, 2018. 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, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Stent-in-stent technique under fluoroscopy for removal of embedded esophageal stent: a retrospective case series.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2022Article
- Safety and Efficacy of Endoscopically Secured Fully Covered Self-Expandable Metallic Stents (FCSEMS) for Post-Bariatric Complex Stenosis.Obesity surgery · 2019Article
- Efficiency and risks of laparoscopic conversion of omega anastomosis gastric bypass to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.Surgical endoscopy · 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
14 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsPartially covered self-expandable metallic stents (PCSEMS), although an effective treatment for anastomotic/staple line leaks and strictures, can be difficult to remove. This study examines the effectiveness of the inversion technique for the removal of PCSEMS in the treatment of leaks and strictures that occurred post-sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB).
methodsConsecutive patients who underwent PCSEMS removal for a leak and/or stricture post-SG or RYGB between July 2013 and December 2016 at the Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions were reviewed. All PCSEMS removals were first attempted via the inversion technique, which involves grasping the distal end of the stent and inverting it through itself.
resultsFourteen patients (four males) underwent PCSEMS removal via the inversion technique for an anastomotic/staple line leak (50%), stricture (29%) or both (21%) post-SG (79%) or RYGB (21%). Technical success (successful removal of the stent) was achieved in one endoscopic session for 13 of the 14 PCSEMS (93%). One PCSEMS required the use of the stent-in-stent technique for removal. The median dwell time was 47 days (range 5-72). A distal partial occlusion developed in five patients (35%) due to tissue overgrowth and one PCSEMS (7%) migrated, necessitating premature removal. Eight patients (57%) experienced clinical success at follow-up, and six patients (43%) required subsequent treatment due to persistence or recurrence of the pathology.
conclusionsThe inversion technique is a safe, effective, and efficient method of removing PCSEMS placed to correct anastomotic/staple line leaks and strictures post-SG and RYGB.
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.