ArticleArquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgery2019
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF LATE RESULTS OF CERVICAL ESOPHAGOGASTRIC ANASTOMOSIS BY MANUAL AND MECHANICAL SUTURE IN PATIENTS SUBMITTED TO ESOPHAGEAL MUCOSECTOMY THROUGH ADVANCED MEGAESOPHAGUS.
Article in Arquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- ADVANCED MEGAESOPHAGUS TREATMENT: WHICH TECHNIQUE OFFERS THE BEST RESULTS? A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW.Arquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgery · 2024Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAmong the anastomoses of the gastrointestinal tract, those of the esophagus are of special interest due to several anatomical or even general peculiarities.
aimEvaluate retrospectively the results comparing mechanical vs. manual suture at cervical esophagogastric anastomosis in megaesophagus treatment.
methodsWere included 92 patients diagnosed with advanced megaesophagus with clinical conditions to undergo the surgery. All underwent esophageal mucosectomy, performing anastomosis of the esophagus stump with the gastric tube at the cervical level. In order to make this anastomosis, the patients were divided into two groups: group A (n=53) with circular mechanical suture, lateral end; group B (n=39) with manual suture in two sides, lateral end. In the postoperative period, an early evaluation was performed, analyzing local and systemic complications and late (average 5.6 y) analyzing deglutition.
resultsEarly evaluation: a) dehiscence of esophagogastric anastomosis n=5 (9.4%) in group A vs. n=9 (23.0%) in group B (p=0.0418); b) stenosis of esophagogastric anastomosis n=8 (15.1%) in group A vs. n=15 (38.4%) in group B (p=0.0105.); c) pulmonary infection n=5 (9.4%) in group A vs. n=3 (7.6%) in group B (p=1.0000.); d) pleural effusion n=5 (9.4%) in group A vs. n=6 (15.4%) in group B (p<0.518). Late evaluation showed that 86.4-96% of the patients presented the criteria 4 and 5 from SAEED, expressing effective swallowing mechanisms without showing significant differences among the groups.
conclusionCervical esophagogastric anastomosis by means of mechanical suture is more proper than the manual with lower incidence of local complications and, in the long-term evaluation, regular deglutition was acquired in both suture techniques in equal quality.
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.