Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33180314›Full record

ArticleUpdates in surgery2021

Colonic interposition, a contemporary experience: technical aspects and outcomes.

Naomi M Fearon, Helen M Mohan, Michelle Fanning, Narayanasamy Ravi, John V Reynolds

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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 · 2026
    Observational
  2. Surgical options in retrosternal oesophageal reconstruction.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Naomi M FearonThe National Oesophageal and Gastric Cancer Centre, St James Hospital, Dublin 8, Ireland. naomifearon@rcsi.ie.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6797-9768
Helen M MohanThe National Oesophageal and Gastric Cancer Centre, St James Hospital, Dublin 8, Ireland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2877-2347
Michelle FanningThe National Oesophageal and Gastric Cancer Centre, St James Hospital, Dublin 8, Ireland.
Narayanasamy RaviThe National Oesophageal and Gastric Cancer Centre, St James Hospital, Dublin 8, Ireland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9794-622X
John V ReynoldsThe National Oesophageal and Gastric Cancer Centre, St James Hospital, Dublin 8, Ireland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5501-9521
St. James's Hospital · IE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Digestive System Surgical ProceduresEsophageal NeoplasmsColonHumansQuality of LifeRetrospective StudiesColon interpositionOesophageal cancerSurgical techniquesUpper gastrointestinal surgery

Identifiers

PMID33180314
OpenAlexW3098727239

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.