Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31965274›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of surgery2020

Comparison Between Endoscopic Vacuum Therapy and Conventional Treatment for Leakage After Rectal Resection.

Florian Kühn, Florian Janisch, Frank Schwandner, Michael Gock, Nicole Wedermann, Maria Witte, Ernst Klar, Leif Schiffmann

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Florian KühnDepartment of General, Thoracic, Vascular and Transplantation Surgery, University of Rostock, Schillingallee 35, 18057, Rostock, Germany.
Florian JanischDepartment of General, Thoracic, Vascular and Transplantation Surgery, University of Rostock, Schillingallee 35, 18057, Rostock, Germany.
Frank SchwandnerDepartment of General, Thoracic, Vascular and Transplantation Surgery, University of Rostock, Schillingallee 35, 18057, Rostock, Germany.
Michael GockDepartment of General, Thoracic, Vascular and Transplantation Surgery, University of Rostock, Schillingallee 35, 18057, Rostock, Germany.
Nicole WedermannDepartment of General, Thoracic, Vascular and Transplantation Surgery, University of Rostock, Schillingallee 35, 18057, Rostock, Germany.
Maria WitteDepartment of General, Thoracic, Vascular and Transplantation Surgery, University of Rostock, Schillingallee 35, 18057, Rostock, Germany.
Ernst KlarDepartment of General, Thoracic, Vascular and Transplantation Surgery, University of Rostock, Schillingallee 35, 18057, Rostock, Germany.
Leif SchiffmannDepartment of General, Thoracic, Vascular and Transplantation Surgery, University of Rostock, Schillingallee 35, 18057, Rostock, Germany. leif@dr-schiffmann.de.
University of Rostock · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAnastomotic leakage after rectal resection represents a severe complication for the patient and requires an early and appropriate management. Endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT) has become the treatment of choice for anastomotic leakage after rectal resection in several institutions in Germany, and commercially available systems are currently distributed in approximately 30 countries worldwide. However, there is no evidence that EVT is superior to any other treatment for anastomotic leakage after rectal resection.

methodsTwenty-one patients treated with EVT for anastomotic leakage after rectal resection were retrospectively compared to a historical cohort of 41 patients that received conventional treatment. Primary endpoints were death, treatment success and long-term preservation of intestinal continuity. Secondary endpoints were length of hospital stay and duration of treatment.

resultsThere was no difference in mortality (p = 0.624). The intention-to-treat analysis showed a significantly higher success rate of EVT compared to conventional treatment (95.2% vs. 65.9%, p = 0.011). EVT was associated with preservation of intestinal continuity in a significant higher percentage of patients than patients undergoing conventional treatment (86.7% vs. 37.5%, p = 0.001). Conventional treatment tended to a shorter length of hospital stay (31.1 vs. 42.2 days, p = 0.066) but with no difference in overall duration of treatment. Time until closing of a diverting stoma did not differ between groups (10.2 months in the EVT group vs. 9.4 months in the conventional treatment group, p = 0.721).

conclusionAccording to this retrospective study, conventional therapy and EVT are both options for the treatment of anastomotic leakage after rectal resection. EVT might be more effective in terms of definite healing and preservation of intestinal continuity.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAnastomotic LeakEndoscopyFemaleHumansLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedNegative-Pressure Wound TherapyRectal NeoplasmsRectumRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID31965274
OpenAlexW3002789222

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.