SynthesisBJS open2020
Anastomotic techniques for oesophagectomy for malignancy: systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BJS open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.
- Stapled vs. hand-sewn anastomosis during esophagectomy: a randomized trials systematic review and meta-analysis.Updates in surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Transitioning from hand-sewn to circular stapled cervical anastomosis after minimally invasive esophagectomy: a Western centre propensity score matching analysis.Updates in surgery · 2026Article
- Operative safety and oncologic outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic total gastrectomy for advanced middle-upper gastric cancer: a multicenter retrospective study.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2026Article
- Clinical outcomes of 23-mm circular stapled cervical anastomosis after esophagectomy.Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society · 2026Article
- Article
- Anastomotic leakage following robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE): which anastomosis should be preferred?Surgical endoscopy · 2025Observational
- Full RAMIE vs Hybrid RAMIE: a retrospective study on outcomes evaluation and cost considerations.Updates in surgery · 2025Article
- Nanotechnology-based biomedical devices in the cancer diagnostics and therapy.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2025Review
- A new oblique-to-side esophagogastric anastomosis approach reduces the incidence of postoperative anastomotic leak after esophagectomy for esophageal carcinoma: a propensity score-matched retrospective study.American journal of cancer research · 2025Article
- Risk factors for and treatment of anastomotic strictures after Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Robot-assisted esophagectomy with robot-sewn intrathoracic anastomosis (Ivor Lewis): surgical technique and early results.Updates in surgery · 2023Article
- Which Anastomotic Techniques Is the Best Choice for Cervical Esophagogastric Anastomosis in Esophagectomy? A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2023Review
- Why pay more for robot in esophageal cancer surgery?Updates in surgery · 2023Review
- Current Issues and Future Technologies in Esophageal Cancer Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- A 25 mm Circular Stapler Anastomosis Is Associated with Higher Anastomotic Leakage Rates Following Minimally Invasive Ivor Lewis Operation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- End-to-side circular stapled versus side-to-side linear stapled intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomosis following minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy: comparison of short-term outcomes.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2022Article
- To sponge or not to sponge: that is the leak question.Journal of thoracic disease · 2022Article
- Circular vs. linear stapling after minimally invasive and robotic-assisted esophagectomy: a pooled analysis.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2022Article
- Circular Stapler Method for Avoiding Stricture of Cervical Esophagogastric Anastomosis.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2022Article
- International consensus statement on robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE).Journal of thoracic disease · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCurrent evidence on the benefits of different anastomotic techniques (hand-sewn (HS), circular stapled (CS), triangulating stapled (TS) or linear stapled/semimechanical (LSSM) techniques) after oesophagectomy is conflicting. The aim of this study was to evaluate the evidence for the techniques for oesophagogastric anastomosis and their impact on perioperative outcomes.
methodsThis was a systematic review and network meta-analysis. PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases were searched systematically for randomized and non-randomized studies reporting techniques for the oesophagogastric anastomosis. Network meta-analysis of postoperative anastomotic leaks and strictures was performed.
resultsOf 4192 articles screened, 15 randomized and 22 non-randomized studies comprising 8618 patients were included. LSSM (odds ratio (OR) 0·50, 95 per cent c.i. 0·33 to 0·74; P = 0·001) and CS (OR 0·68, 0·48 to 0·95; P = 0·027) anastomoses were associated with lower anastomotic leak rates than HS anastomoses. LSSM anastomoses were associated with lower stricture rates than HS anastomoses (OR 0·32, 0·19 to 0·54; P < 0·001).
conclusionLSSM anastomoses after oesophagectomy are superior with regard to anastomotic leak and stricture rates.
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.