ArticleTherapeutic advances in gastroenterology2017
Endoscopic management of complications of self-expandable metal stents for treatment of malignant esophageal stenosis and tracheoesophageal fistulas.
Article in Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology, 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, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Self-expanding metal stent in esophageal perforations and anastomotic leaks.Indian journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology · 2020Article
- Endoscopic management of perforations, leaks and fistulas.Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2018Review
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
backgroundSelf-expandable metal stent (SEMS) implantation may rapidly improve the symptoms of malignant esophageal stenosis and tracheoesophageal fistulas (TEF). However, dysphagia often returns subsequently and repeated endoscopic intervention may be necessary. The aims of the study were to identify the risk factors of complications, and the frequency and efficacy of repeated endoscopic interventions; and to provide technical recommendations on appropriate stent selection.
methodsWe analyzed retrospectively the clinical data of 212 patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer who underwent SEMS implantation.
resultsA total of 238 SEMS implantations were performed with 99.06% technical success and 1.26% procedure-related deaths in the enrolled 212 cases. Complications occurred in 84 patients (39.62%) and in 55 cases (25.94%) repeated endoscopic procedures were required. Early reintervention 24-48 h after the stent implantations was necessary due to stent migration (12 cases), arrhythmia (2 cases), intolerable retrosternal pain (1 case) and dyspnea (1 case). An average of 1.98 repeated gastroscopies (range 1-6; median 2), 13.58 weeks (range 1.5-48; median 11) after the stent implantation were performed during the follow-up period: 37 stent repositions, 23 restent implantations, 15 endoscopic esophageal dilations and 7 stent removals. In 48 cases (87.3%) oral feeding of patients was made possible by endoscopic interventions.
conclusionsIn a quarter of SEMS implantations, complications occur that can be successfully managed by endoscopic interventions. Our experiences have shown that individualized stent choice may substantially reduce the complications rate and make repeated endoscopic interventions easier.
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.