ArticleSurgical endoscopy2018
Treatment of benign perforations and leaks of the esophagus: factors associated with success after stent placement.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Esophageal stenting and endoscopic vacuum therapy for esophageal defects: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Article
- Best Practices in Esophageal, Gastroduodenal, and Colonic Stenting.GE Portuguese journal of gastroenterology · 2023Review
- Endoscopic Vacuum Therapy in Patients with Transmural Defects of the Upper Gastrointestinal Tract: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Endoscopic management of anastomotic leak after esophageal or gastric resection for malignancy: a multicenter experience.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2021Article
- Esophageal leaks: I thought that glue was not effective.Endoscopy international open · 2018Article
- Efficacy of esophageal stents as a primary therapeutic option in spontaneous esophageal perforations: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.Annals of gastroenterologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSelf-expanding metal stent (SEMS) is effective and safe for the treatment of benign esophageal perforations or leaks. The purpose of this study was to identify factors associated with clinical success after SEMS placement.
methodsPatients who received SEMS placement for treatment of benign esophageal perforations or leaks were retrospectively identified. These patients were analyzed for factors associated with clinical success and complications.
resultsA total of 31 patients underwent stent insertion for benign esophageal perforations (n = 11) or anastomotic leaks (n = 20). Clinical success was achieved in twenty-three patients (74.2%) after initial stent insertion. In multivariate analysis, early stent insertion within 1 day was identified as a significant independent predictor of successful sealing (Odds ratio = 3.14, 95% CI 1.36-7.24; p = 0.013). The anastomotic leak group needed a longer stent dwelling time (≥ 4 weeks) compared to the perforation group (75.0% vs. 27.3%, p = 0.022).
conclusionsClinical success was significantly associated with early stent insertion. The dwelling time of stent was shorter for benign perforations compared to anastomotic leaks.
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.