Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30957061›Full record

SynthesisBJS open2019

Systematic review of endoluminal vacuum-assisted therapy as salvage treatment for rectal anastomotic leakage.

M Shalaby, S Emile, H Elfeki, A Sakr, S D Wexner, P Sileri

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BJS open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

42 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 75 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. The use of Endo-SPONGETechniques in coloproctology · 2020
    Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 4 countries.

M ShalabyDepartment of General Surgery, Colorectal Surgery Unit Mansoura University Mansoura Egypt.ORCID 0000-0002-0358-2398
S EmileDepartment of General Surgery, Colorectal Surgery Unit Mansoura University Mansoura Egypt.ORCID 0000-0001-7854-5244
H ElfekiDepartment of General Surgery, Colorectal Surgery Unit Mansoura University Mansoura Egypt.ORCID 0000-0003-0704-4068
A SakrDepartment of General Surgery, Colorectal Surgery Unit Mansoura University Mansoura Egypt.
S D WexnerDepartment of Colorectal Surgery Cleveland Clinic Florida Weston Florida USA.
P SileriDepartment of General Surgery Rome Tor Vergata University Rome Italy.
Mansoura University · EGUniversity of Rome Tor Vergata · ITCleveland Clinic Florida · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Endoluminal vacuum-assisted therapy (EVT) has been introduced recently to treat colorectal anastomotic leakage. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of EVT in the treatment of anastomotic leakage and rectal stump insufficiency after Hartmann's procedure. Methods: A systematic search of MEDLINE, Scopus and Cochrane databases was performed using search terms related to EVT and anastomotic leakage or rectal stump insufficiency in line with the PRISMA checklist. Observational studies, RCTs and case series studies published to July 2017 were included. Primary outcomes of the review were the success of EVT, defined as complete or partial healing of the anastomotic defect and associated cavity, and the rate of stoma reversal after EVT. Secondary outcomes included the duration of treatment to complete healing, complications of treatment and the need for further intervention. A meta-analysis was conducted. The potential effect of clinical confounders on the failure of EVT was investigated using the random-effects meta-regression model. Results: Of 476 articles identified, 17 studies reporting on 276 patients were ultimately included. The weighted mean rate of success was 85·3 (95 per cent c.i. 80·1 to 90·5) per cent, with a median duration from inception of EVT to complete healing of 47 (range 40-105) days. The weighted mean rate of stoma reversal across the studies was 75·9 (64·6 to 87·2) per cent. Twenty-five patients (9·1 per cent) required additional interventions after EVT. Thirty-eight patients (13·8 per cent) developed complications. The weighted mean complication rate across the studies was 11·1 (6·0 to 16·2) per cent. Variables significantly associated with failure included preoperative radiotherapy, absence of diverting stoma, complications and male sex. Conclusion: EVT is associated with a high rate of complete healing of anastomotic leakage and stoma reversal. It is an effective option in appropriately selected patients with anastomotic leakage.

Indexed as

Anastomosis, SurgicalAnastomotic LeakColon, SigmoidHumansNegative-Pressure Wound TherapyRectal NeoplasmsRectumSalvage TherapyTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID30957061
PMCPMC6433422
OpenAlexW2907759118

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.