Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33024061›Full record

ArticleGut and liver2020

Efficacy of Endoscopic Vacuum-Assisted Closure Treatment for Postoperative Anastomotic Leak in Gastric Cancer.

Soo In Choi, Jun Chul Park, Da Hyun Jung, Sung Kwan Shin, Sang Kil Lee, Yong Chan Lee

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Gut and liver, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Current Trends in Gastric Cancer Surgery and Postoperative Care.The Korean journal of helicobacter and upper gastrointestinal research · 2025
    Review
  4. [Endoscopic Treatments in Perforation or Fistula in Upper Gastrointestinal Tract].The Korean journal of helicobacter and upper gastrointestinal research · 2024
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Soo In ChoiDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Inje University Sanggye Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-6156-5898
Jun Chul ParkDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Severance Hospital, Institute of Gastroenterology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-8018-0010
Da Hyun JungDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Severance Hospital, Institute of Gastroenterology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-6668-3113
Sung Kwan ShinDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Severance Hospital, Institute of Gastroenterology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-5466-1400
Sang Kil LeeDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Severance Hospital, Institute of Gastroenterology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-0721-0364
Yong Chan LeeDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Severance Hospital, Institute of Gastroenterology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-8800-6906
Yonsei University · KRInje University Sanggye Paik Hospital · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background/Aims: Endoscopic vacuum-assisted closure (EVAC) has been attempted as new nonsurgical treatment for anastomotic leakage. We aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of EVAC and compare its efficacy with the self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) for postgastrectomy leakage. Methods: Between January 2007 and February 2018, 39 patients underwent endoscopic treatment for anastomotic leakage after gastric cancer surgery. Of them, 28 patients were treated with SEMS, seven with EVAC after SEMS failure, and four with EVAC. We retrospectively compared the clinical characteristics and therapeutic outcomes between EVAC (n=11) and SEMS (n=28). Results: The median followup duration was 17 months (interquartile range, 9 to 26 months) in both groups. In comparison of clinical characteristics between two groups, only the median size of the leak was larger in the EVAC group than in the SEMS group (2.1 cm vs 1.0 cm; p<0.001). All EVAC cases healed successfully; however, two cases (7.1%) failed to heal in the SEMS group. Anastomotic stricture occurred one case (9.1%) in EVAC and four cases (14.3%) in SEMS within 1 year after endoscopic treatment. The median treatment duration of EVAC was shorter than that of SEMS (15 days vs 36 days; p<0.001). Median weight loss after therapy was similar in both groups (8.0 kg in EVAC vs 9.0 kg in SEMS; p=0.356). Conclusions: EVAC can be effective endoscopic treatment for postgastrectomy anastomotic leakage. Substantial leakage could be an important clinical factor for considering EVAC as a treatment option. Large randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm the efficacy of EVAC.

Indexed as

Negative-Pressure Wound TherapyStomach NeoplasmsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAnastomotic LeakEndoscopyFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesStentsTreatment OutcomeAnastomotic leakGastrectomySelf-expandable metallic stentsStomach neoplasmsVacuum assisted closure

Identifiers

PMID33024061
PMCPMC7667929
OpenAlexW3092642433

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.