Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28785567›Full record

ReviewVisceral medicine2017

Leakage of Hepaticojejunal Anastomosis: Reoperation.

Ulrich F Wellner, Tobias Keck

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Visceral medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. 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

2 authors.

Ulrich F WellnerClinic for Surgery, University Clinic Schleswig-Holstein Campus Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.
Tobias KeckClinic for Surgery, University Clinic Schleswig-Holstein Campus Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLeakage of a hepaticojejunal anastomosis is a rare event with potential major morbidity. Surgeons must be aware of the technical armamentarium and pitfalls in revisional surgery for hepaticojejunal anastomosis leakage.

methodsReview of the available literature and discussion of technical details based on experience and expert opinion.

resultsEarly bile leaks as well as failed interventional therapy are indications for reoperation. Almost all reports only mention rates of leakage as a secondary endpoint but do not report details of treatment and outcome. Few authors have compared outcome after reoperation versus interventional approaches in observational studies, with the latter resulting in lower morbidity. The complex and individual situation of the complication makes evidence-based argumentation difficult; this is why personal expert opinions have to be taken into account in this review. The technical aspects and pitfalls of revisional surgery are outlined but represent anecdotal evidence as comparative studies are lacking.

conclusionBile leak after bilioenteric anastomosis is a rare condition that requires differentiated workup and therapy. Early leaks usually result from technical problems and are amenable to repair by reoperation. Reoperation technique can only be discussed on a low evidence level.

Indexed as

Bile leakHepaticojejunostomyLiver resectionPancreatectomyPostoperative complications

Identifiers

PMID28785567
PMCPMC5527171

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.