Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32860110›Full record

ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2020

Outcomes of esophageal bypass surgery and self-expanding metallic stent insertion in esophageal cancer: reevaluation of bypass surgery as an alternative treatment.

Daichi Nomoto, Yoshifumi Baba, Takahiko Akiyama, Kazuo Okadome, Tomoyuki Uchihara, Kazuto Harada, Kojiro Eto, Yukiharu Hiyoshi, Yohei Nagai, Takatsugu Ishimoto and 6 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

16 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Daichi NomotoDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kumamoto University, 1-1-1 Honjo, Chuo-ku, Kumamoto, 860-8556, Japan.
Yoshifumi BabaDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kumamoto University, 1-1-1 Honjo, Chuo-ku, Kumamoto, 860-8556, Japan.
Takahiko AkiyamaDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kumamoto University, 1-1-1 Honjo, Chuo-ku, Kumamoto, 860-8556, Japan.
Kazuo OkadomeDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kumamoto University, 1-1-1 Honjo, Chuo-ku, Kumamoto, 860-8556, Japan.
Tomoyuki UchiharaDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kumamoto University, 1-1-1 Honjo, Chuo-ku, Kumamoto, 860-8556, Japan.
Kazuto HaradaDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kumamoto University, 1-1-1 Honjo, Chuo-ku, Kumamoto, 860-8556, Japan.
Kojiro EtoDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kumamoto University, 1-1-1 Honjo, Chuo-ku, Kumamoto, 860-8556, Japan.
Yukiharu HiyoshiDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kumamoto University, 1-1-1 Honjo, Chuo-ku, Kumamoto, 860-8556, Japan.
Yohei NagaiDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kumamoto University, 1-1-1 Honjo, Chuo-ku, Kumamoto, 860-8556, Japan.
Takatsugu IshimotoDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kumamoto University, 1-1-1 Honjo, Chuo-ku, Kumamoto, 860-8556, Japan.
Masaaki IwatsukiDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kumamoto University, 1-1-1 Honjo, Chuo-ku, Kumamoto, 860-8556, Japan.
Shiro IwagamiDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kumamoto University, 1-1-1 Honjo, Chuo-ku, Kumamoto, 860-8556, Japan.
Yuji MiyamotoDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kumamoto University, 1-1-1 Honjo, Chuo-ku, Kumamoto, 860-8556, Japan.
Naoya YoshidaDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kumamoto University, 1-1-1 Honjo, Chuo-ku, Kumamoto, 860-8556, Japan.
Masayuki WatanabeDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Cancer Institute Hospital, Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, 3-8-31 Ariake, Koto-ku, Tokyo, 135-8550, Japan.
Hideo BabaDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kumamoto University, 1-1-1 Honjo, Chuo-ku, Kumamoto, 860-8556, Japan. hdobaba@kumamoto-u.ac.jp.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6292-8670
Kumamoto University · JPJapanese Foundation For Cancer Research · JPKumamoto University Hospital · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAdvanced esophageal cancer often results in esophageal stenosis or tracheoesophageal fistula. Esophageal bypass surgery and esophageal stent insertion are palliative treatments for esophageal cancer. With improvements in metallic stents and the stent insertion technique, esophageal stent insertion appears to be performed more frequently than bypass surgery, worldwide. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of bypass surgery and stent insertion in our hospital and reevaluate which patients would benefit from bypass surgery.

methodsA total of 70 esophageal cancer patients who could not tolerate oral feeding due to esophageal stenosis or tracheoesophageal fistula underwent palliative treatment [esophageal bypass surgery (N = 34) and esophageal stent insertion (N = 36)] at Kumamoto University. We retrospectively investigated the clinicopathological factors, postoperative outcomes, and complications.

resultsBoth treatments could significantly improve the amount of food intake and the dietary form (P < 0.01). The length of hospital stay was shorter (P < 0.01) and complications associated with treatment were reduced in the stent group (P = 0.03). The overall survival did not differ significantly between the groups (log rank P = 0.22). Importantly, in the bypass surgery group, the patients who received postoperative treatment had a better prognosis than those who did not receive postoperative treatment (log rank P < 0.01).

conclusionBoth bypass surgery and stent insertion allowed oral intake in patients who could not tolerate oral feeding because of esophageal stenosis or tracheoesophageal fistula. Considering that patients who undergo stent insertion have a shorter hospital stay and fewer complications, stent insertion may be a better first choice for treatment than bypass surgery. However, bypass surgery may be an option for patients who can tolerate postoperative treatment.

Indexed as

Esophageal NeoplasmsEsophageal StenosisHumansPalliative CareRetrospective StudiesStentsTreatment OutcomeBypass surgeryEsophageal cancerFistulaStenosis

Identifiers

PMID32860110
OpenAlexW3081709960

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.