Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29909668›Full record

ArticleAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2018

Comparison of cervical anastomotic leak and stenosis after oesophagectomy for carcinoma according to the interval of the stomach ischaemic conditioning.

V Prochazka, F Marek, L Kunovsky, R Svaton, T Grolich, P Moravcik, M Farkasova, Z Kala

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Feasibility of hybrid Ivor-Lewis oesophagectomy after sleeve gastrectomy.Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2022
    Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

V ProchazkaDepartment of Surgery, University Hospital Brno Bohunice, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University , Czech Republic.
F MarekDepartment of Surgery, University Hospital Brno Bohunice, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University , Czech Republic.
L KunovskyDepartment of Surgery, University Hospital Brno Bohunice, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University , Czech Republic.
R SvatonDepartment of Surgery, University Hospital Brno Bohunice, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University , Czech Republic.
T GrolichDepartment of Surgery, University Hospital Brno Bohunice, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University , Czech Republic.
P MoravcikDepartment of Surgery, University Hospital Brno Bohunice, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University , Czech Republic.
M FarkasovaDepartment of Surgery, University Hospital Brno Bohunice, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University , Czech Republic.
Z KalaDepartment of Surgery, University Hospital Brno Bohunice, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University , Czech Republic.
Masaryk University · CZUniversity Hospital Brno · CZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background Stomach preparation by ischaemic conditioning prior to oesophageal resection represents a potential method of reducing the risk of anastomotic complications. This study compares the results of the anastomotic complications of cervical anastomosis after oesophagectomy with a short interval after ischaemic conditioning (group S) and a long interval (group L). Methods Subjects undergoing oesophagectomy for carcinoma after ischaemic conditioning were divided into two groups. Group S had a median interval between ischaemic conditioning and resection of 20 days, while for group L the median interval was 49 days. Anastomotic leak and anastomotic stenosis in relation to the interval between ischaemic conditioning and actual resection were followed. Results After ischaemic conditioning, 33 subjects in total underwent surgery for carcinoma; 19 subjects in group S and 14 subjects in group L. Anastomotic leak incidence was comparable in both groups. Anastomotic stenosis occurred in 21% of cases in group S and 7% of cases in group L (not statistically significant). Conclusions A long interval between ischaemic conditioning and oesophagectomy does not adversely affect the postoperative complications. A lower incidence of anastomosis stenoses was found in subjects with a longer interval, however, given the size of our sample, the statistical significance was not demonstrated. Both groups seem comparable in surgical procedure course and postoperative complications.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAnastomosis, SurgicalAnastomotic LeakConstriction, PathologicEsophageal NeoplasmsEsophagectomyFemaleHumansIncidenceIschemic PreconditioningMaleMiddle AgedMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresStomachTime FactorsAnastomotic leakAnastomotic stenosisMinimally invasive oesophagectomyOesophageal carcinomaStomach ischaemic conditioning

Identifiers

PMID29909668
PMCPMC6214061
OpenAlexW2809026650

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.