ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2020
Comparison of circular stapling, triangulating stapling and T-shape stapling for cervical anastomosis with minimally invasive esophagectomy.
Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Totally mechanical Collard versus circular stapled cervical esophagogastric anastomosis for minimally invasive esophagectomy.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- 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
- Circular vs. linear stapling after minimally invasive and robotic-assisted esophagectomy: a pooled analysis.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe triangulating stapling (TST) and T-shape stapling (TS) methods have been proposed to decrease the incidence of anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy, but few studies have compared them to the circular stapling technique (CS). This retrospective study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of three cervical anastomosis methods after esophagectomy.
methodsSquamous cell carcinoma patients who underwent minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) with CS, TST or TS anastomosis between April 2010 and June 2012 were recruited. Their clinical characteristics and short-term outcome were analyzed. Kaplan-Meier analyses compared with log-rank test were used to calculate the effect of the three types of cervical anastomosis on overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS).
resultsThe incidence of anastomotic leakage was 21.8% in the CS group, 7.7% in the TS group and 11.9% in the TST group (P=0.029). There were significant differences in the incidence of gastroesophageal reflux among the three groups (P<0.001). Rates of anastomotic stenosis, pulmonary infection, chylothorax and hoarseness were not different among the groups. There were significant differences in anastomotic time, operation time and hospitalization time (all P<0.001), but there was no significant difference in albumin content at 1 month after operation (P=0.226). There was no differences in long-term surgical effects of the three types of anastomosis.
conclusionsCervical esophagogastric anastomosis by TST or TS can be considered feasible and safe and with improved short-term outcome.
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.