Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31410823›Full record

ArticleUpdates in surgery2020

Perianastomotic drainage in Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy, does habit affect utility? An 11-year single-center experience.

C A De Pasqual, J Weindelmayer, S Laiti, R La Mendola, M Bencivenga, L Alberti, S Giacopuzzi, G de Manzoni

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Updates in surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

8 authors.

C A De PasqualGeneral and Upper GI Surgery Division, University of Verona, Piazzale Stefani, 1, 37124, Verona, Italy. carlodepasqual@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7719-258X
J WeindelmayerGeneral and Upper GI Surgery Division, University of Verona, Piazzale Stefani, 1, 37124, Verona, Italy.
S LaitiGeneral and Upper GI Surgery Division, University of Verona, Piazzale Stefani, 1, 37124, Verona, Italy.
R La MendolaGeneral and Upper GI Surgery Division, University of Verona, Piazzale Stefani, 1, 37124, Verona, Italy.
M BencivengaGeneral and Upper GI Surgery Division, University of Verona, Piazzale Stefani, 1, 37124, Verona, Italy.
L AlbertiGeneral and Upper GI Surgery Division, University of Verona, Piazzale Stefani, 1, 37124, Verona, Italy.
S GiacopuzziGeneral and Upper GI Surgery Division, University of Verona, Piazzale Stefani, 1, 37124, Verona, Italy.
G de ManzoniGeneral and Upper GI Surgery Division, University of Verona, Piazzale Stefani, 1, 37124, Verona, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Anastomotic leakage (AL) is a deadly complication after Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy. The use of an anastomotic drainage (AD), to diagnose and to potentially treat the leakage, is still a widespread practice. At present, scientific literature is lacking in this topic and its use is based on each center experience. We performed a retrospective analysis of 239 consecutive patients who underwent an Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy in our Department from 01/01/2006 to 31/12/2017. Until 28/02/2014, a transthoracic anastomotic drainage was routinely placed in 119 patients (anastomotic-drain group). Drainage removal was planned on POD 5 after the resume of oral intake. In the remaining 120 cases, no drainage was placed (no anastomotic-drain group). We compared the two groups to assess whether the anastomotic drainage had an impact on the timing of the anastomotic leakage diagnosis and treatment. In our series, we observed 9 anastomotic leaks in the first group (7.6%) and 3 in the second one (2.5%). In the anastomotic-drain group, median time for leak diagnosis was 10 days, and notably, in seven cases, the anastomotic drainage was already removed. Considering all the patients who experienced an AL, a re-operation was mandatory in one case, while endoscopic treatment was chosen for five cases and conservative treatment was adopted in three cases. The median hospital length of stay in these patients was 31 days. In the no anastomotic-drain group, one patient with anastomotic leakage was treated conservatively and discharged after 34 days. The other two cases were re-operated and an esophageal prosthesis was placed in both cases, and these patients were discharged, respectively, on POD 28 and POD 38. Concluding, the role of the anastomotic drain in Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy is still unclear. There is a shortage of the literature on this topic and our experience shows that the anastomotic drain has a limited sensibility in AL diagnosis and cannot replace the clinical signs and symptoms. Moreover, the drain it is often removed before the leakage becomes visible. In selected patients with a less severe leak, the anastomotic drain can be an effective treatment, but often a percutaneous drainage, it is an effective alternative choice. In severe dehiscence with sepsis, a reoperation remains the mainstay to control the mediastinal contamination and to eventually treat the leakage.

Indexed as

Anastomosis, SurgicalAnastomotic LeakDrainageEsophagectomyHumansTime FactorsAnastomotic leakageEsophagectomyEsophago-gastric anastomosis

Identifiers

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.