Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33258044›Full record

ArticleUpdates in surgery2021

Effectiveness of endoscopic vacuum therapy as rescue treatment in refractory leaks after gastro-esophageal surgery.

Carlo Alberto De Pasqual, Valentina Mengardo, Francesco Tomba, Alessandro Veltri, Michele Sacco, Simone Giacopuzzi, Jacopo Weindelmayer, Giovanni de Manzoni

Open access · hybridAbstract read
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 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Carlo Alberto De PasqualGeneral and Upper GI Surgery Division, University of Verona, Piazzale A. Stefani 1, 37124, Verona, Italy.
Valentina MengardoGeneral and Upper GI Surgery Division, University of Verona, Piazzale A. Stefani 1, 37124, Verona, Italy. valentina.mengardo@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5915-1028
Francesco TombaDepartment of Emergency Surgical Endoscopy, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata, Piazzale A. Stefani 1, 37124, Verona, Italy.
Alessandro VeltriGeneral and Upper GI Surgery Division, University of Verona, Piazzale A. Stefani 1, 37124, Verona, Italy.
Michele SaccoGeneral and Upper GI Surgery Division, University of Verona, Piazzale A. Stefani 1, 37124, Verona, Italy.
Simone GiacopuzziGeneral and Upper GI Surgery Division, University of Verona, Piazzale A. Stefani 1, 37124, Verona, Italy.
Jacopo WeindelmayerGeneral and Upper GI Surgery Division, University of Verona, Piazzale A. Stefani 1, 37124, Verona, Italy.
Giovanni de ManzoniGeneral and Upper GI Surgery Division, University of Verona, Piazzale A. Stefani 1, 37124, Verona, Italy.
University of Verona · ITAzienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata Verona · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The treatment of leak after esophageal and gastric surgery is a major challenge. Over the last few years, endoscopic vacuum therapy (E-VAC) has gained popularity in the management of this life-threatening complication. We reported our initial experience on E-VAC therapy as rescue treatment in refractory anastomotic leak and perforation after gastro-esophageal surgery. From September 2017 to December 2019, a total of 8 E-VAC therapies were placed as secondary treatment in 7 patients. Six for anastomotic leak (3 cervical, 1 thoracic, 2 abdominal) and 1 for perforation of the gastric conduit. In 6 cases, E-VAC was placed intracavitary; while in the remaining 2, the sponge was positioned intraluminal (one patient was treated with both approaches). A total of 60 sponges were used in the whole cohort. The median number of sponge insertions was 10 (range: 5-14) with a median treatment duration of 41 days (range: 19-49). A complete healing was achieved in 4 intracavitary (67%) and in 1 intraluminal (50%) E-VAC. We observed only one E-VAC-related complication: a bleeding successfully managed endoscopically. E-VAC therapy seems to be a safe and effective tool in the management of leaks and perforations after upper GI surgery, although with longer healing time when it is used as secondary treatment.

Indexed as

Negative-Pressure Wound TherapyAnastomotic LeakEsophagusGastrectomyHumansStomachE-VACRefractory anastomotic leakUpper-GI surgery

Identifiers

PMID33258044
PMCPMC8005387
OpenAlexW3108971378

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.