Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29372375›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of surgery2018

Endoluminal Vacuum Therapy (E-Vac): A Treatment Option in Oesophagogastric Surgery.

D J Pournaras, R H Hardwick, P M Safranek, V Sujendran, J Bennett, G D Macaulay, A Hindmarsh

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
10.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 99 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

D J PournarasCambridge Oesophago-Gastric Centre, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals, Hills Rd, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK. dpournaras@doctors.org.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-8798-920X
R H HardwickCambridge Oesophago-Gastric Centre, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals, Hills Rd, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK.
P M SafranekCambridge Oesophago-Gastric Centre, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals, Hills Rd, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK.
V SujendranCambridge Oesophago-Gastric Centre, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals, Hills Rd, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK.
J BennettCambridge Oesophago-Gastric Centre, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals, Hills Rd, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK.
G D MacaulayCambridge Oesophago-Gastric Centre, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals, Hills Rd, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK.
A HindmarshCambridge Oesophago-Gastric Centre, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals, Hills Rd, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK.
University of Cambridge · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLeaks from the upper gastrointestinal tract often pose a management challenge, particularly when surgical treatment has failed or is impossible. Vacuum therapy has revolutionised the treatment of wounds, and its role in enabling and accelerating healing is now explored in oesophagogastric surgery.

methodsA piece of open cell foam is sutured around the distal end of a nasogastric tube using a silk suture. Under general anaesthetic, the foam covered tip is placed endoscopically through the perforation and into any extra-luminal cavity. Continuous negative pressure (125 mmHg) is then applied. Re-evaluation with change of the negative pressure system is performed every 48-72 h depending on the clinical condition. Patients are fed enterally and treated with broad-spectrum antibiotics and anti-fungal medication until healing, assessed endoscopically and/or radiologically, is complete.

resultsSince April 2011, twenty one patients have been treated. The cause of the leak was postoperative/iatrogenic complications (14 patients) and ischaemic/spontaneous perforation (seven patients). Twenty patients (95%) completed treatment successfully with healing of the defect and/or resolution of the cavity and were subsequently discharged from our care. One patient died from sepsis related to an oesophageal leak after withdrawing consent for further intervention following a single endoluminal vacuum (E-Vac) treatment. In addition, two patients who were successfully treated with E-Vac for their leak subsequently died within 90 days of E-Vac treatment from complications that were not associated with the E-Vac procedure. In two patients, E-Vac treatment was complicated by bleeding. The median number of E-Vac changes was 7 (range 3-12), and the median length of hospital stay was 35 days (range 23-152).

conclusionsE-Vac therapy is a safe and effective treatment for upper gastrointestinal leaks and should be considered alongside more established therapies. Further research is now needed to understand the mechanism of action and to improve the ease with which E-Vac therapy can be delivered.

Indexed as

Negative-Pressure Wound TherapyAged, 80 and overEsophagusFemaleHumansLength of StayMiddle AgedPostoperative ComplicationsSepsisTreatment OutcomeVacuumWound Healing

Identifiers

PMID29372375
PMCPMC6060786
OpenAlexW2793901951

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.