ArticleUpdates in surgery2021
Colonic interposition, a contemporary experience: technical aspects and outcomes.
Article in Updates in surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Nutritional aspects and quality of life in gastroesophageal cancer patients that underwent colonic interposition.Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus · 2026Observational
- Surgical options in retrosternal oesophageal reconstruction.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2024Article
- Distal-continual colon interposition for esophageal reconstruction after esophagectomy: Two case reports.Frontiers in surgery · 2023Article
- Operative outcomes and long-term survival of patients undergoing colon interposition after esophagectomy for cancer.Thoracic cancer · 2022Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Colonic interposition is rarely used as an oesophageal replacement after resection, as the preferred use of stomach involves less anastomoses and lower risks of major complications. The functional outcome from the colonic conduit is also unpredictable. This report documents the spectrum of experience of a high-volume oesophageal centre, highlighting indications, techniques and functional outcomes. A retrospective review was undertaken of a prospective database from 2012 to 2016. Four of 252 (1.5%) cases in this time period utilised colon interposition. Two cases were for gastric conduit necrosis following oesophageal cancer resections, one for caustic ingestion with both an oesophago-bronchial fistula and gastric injury, and one for a primary oesophageal malignancy in a patient whom previously had a total gastrectomy. All patients had either a retrosternal or posterior mediastinal isoperistaltic right colon conduit placed. Two of three cancer patients are alive and disease free at 3 and 5 years, respectively. Surviving patients are weight stable and tolerating a normal diet. Both report excellent quality of life using validated assessment tools. Colonic interposition is rarely required in modern oesophageal practice, but with this technique good long-term nutritional and functional outcomes can be obtained. It is required in the armamentarium of a specialist centre, and training given its rarity may require novel approaches such as simulation and cadaveric-based training.
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.