ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2017
Significant decrease of mortality due to anastomotic leaks following esophageal resection: management makes the difference.
Article in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Feasibility, effectiveness, and safety of endoscopic vacuum therapy for intrathoracic anastomotic leakage following transthoracic esophageal resection.BMC gastroenterology · 2021Article
- Prognostic value of inflammatory markers for detecting anastomotic leakage after esophageal resection.BMC surgery · 2020Article
- Diltiazem Prophylaxis for the Prevention of Atrial Fibrillation in Patients Undergoing Thoracoabdominal Esophagectomy: A Retrospective Cohort Study.World journal of surgery · 2020Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAnastomotic leakage is the most frequent cause of postoperative mortality following esophageal surgery. However, no gold standard for diagnosing and managing leakage has been established. Continuous clinical judgment is extremely important; therefore, to optimize the management of leakage, we established a special group for decision-making in cases of suspected leakage in the early postoperative period.
methodsBetween January 2010 and December 2016, 234 consecutive patients underwent elective esophageal resection with a thoracoabdominal incision. In 2014, we established a group consisting of a surgeon, surgical endoscopist, and anesthesiologist for decision-making in cases of suspected leakage. They discussed emerging problems and decided on further diagnostics or therapy. The data were documented prospectively and compared to the years prior to 2014.
resultsTwo hundred and thirty-four consecutive patients were enrolled in the study, 110 in the years 2010-2013 (group A), and 124 in the years 2014-2016 (group B). Neither patients' characteristics nor the rate of anastomotic leakage differed significantly between the two study groups. The hospital mortality rate was 10% (11 patients) in group A and 4.8% (six patients) in group B. Most interestingly, mortality due to anastomotic leakage was 35% in group A (9/26), whereas it decreased significantly to 6.5% (2/31 patients) (P < 0.001) in group B.
conclusionsOur data clearly demonstrated that optimizing the management of anastomotic leakage by making team decisions can lead to a significant decrease in mortality.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28975494What 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.