Trial reportJournal of surgical oncology2020
A single blinded randomized controlled trial comparing semi-mechanical with hand-sewn cervical anastomosis after esophagectomy for cancer (SHARE-study).
Trial report in Journal of surgical oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Stapled vs. hand-sewn anastomosis during esophagectomy: a randomized trials systematic review and meta-analysis.Updates in surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Prehabilitation Reduces Occurrence of Anastomotic Leaks After Esophagectomy-A Retrospective Cohort Analysis and Meta-analysis.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2025Pooled it
- A single blinded randomized controlled trial comparing semi-mechanical with hand-sewn cervical anastomosis after esophagectomy for cancer (SHARE-study).Journal of surgical oncology · 2020Trial
- STAPLED FASCIAL CLOSURE VS. CONTINUOUS HAND-SEWN SUTURE: EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF THE ABDOMINAL WALL ON PORCINE MODEL AND HUMAN CADAVER.Arquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgery · 2024Article
- 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
- Outcomes of Minimally Invasive and Robot-Assisted Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer.Cancers · 2022Review
- Anastomotic Leak: Toward an Understanding of Its Root Causes.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim was to compare leak rate between hand-sewn end-to-end anastomosis (ETE) and semi-mechanical anastomosis (SMA) after esophagectomy with gastric tube reconstruction. BACKGROUND DATA: The optimal surgical technique for creation of an anastomosis in the neck after esophagectomy is unclear.
methodsPatients with esophageal cancer undergoing esophagectomy with gastric tube reconstruction and cervical anastomosis were eligible for participation after written informed consent. Patients were randomized in 1:1 ratio. Primary endpoint was anastomotic leak rate defined as external drainage of saliva from the site of the anastomosis or intra-thoracic manifestation of leak. Secondary endpoints included anastomotic stricture rate at one year follow up, number of endoscopic dilatations, dysphagia-score, hospital stay, morbidity, and mortality. Patients were blinded for intervention.
resultsBetween August 2011 and July 2014, 174 patients with esophageal cancer underwent esophagectomy. Ninety-three patients were randomized to ETE (n = 44) or SMA (n = 49). Anastomotic leak occurred in 9 of 44 patients (20%) in the ETE group and 12 of 49 patients (24%) in the SMA group (absolute difference 4%, 95% CI -13% to +21%; p = .804). There was no significant difference in dysphagia at 1 year postoperatively (ETE 25% vs. SMA 20%; p = .628), in stricture rate (ETE 25% vs. 19% in SMA, p = .46), nor in median hospital stay (17 days in the ETE group, 13 days in the SMA group), morbidity (82% vs. 73%, p = .460) or mortality (0% vs. 4%, p = .175) between the groups.
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.