ArticleMolecular and clinical oncology2021
Comparison of a modified one-piece mechanical and double-layer hand-sewn anastomosis in McKeown esophagogastrectomy: A single-institute retrospective study.
Article in Molecular and clinical oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Purse-indigitation mechanical anastomosisAnnals of translational medicine · 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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present study aimed to introduce a novel method of cervical esophagogastric anastomosis, so-called 'modified one-piece mechanical anastomosis' (MOMA) in McKeown esophagogastrectomy and to compare its feasibility, efficacy and safety with those of 'conventionally double-layer hand-sewn anastomosis' (CDHA). Between March 2016 and March 2018, 80 consecutive patients with thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma undergoing McKeown esophagogastrectomy with a curative intent were included in the present study. Among them, 40 received MOMA and the other 40 received CDHA. Their medical records, including operation time, anastomotic time, estimated blood loss, postoperative complications within 30 days, as well as survival rate, were retrospectively reviewed, analyzed and compared. Total operation time, anastomotic time and estimated blood loss in the MOMA group were significantly decreased compared with those in the CDHA group (207.73±2.66 vs. 225.40±3.43 min; 10.95±0.44 vs. 23.03±0.47 min; 144.50±21.14 vs. 241.75±23.75 ml; all P<0.01). Anastomotic leakage was present in 1 patient in the CDHA group, but no patients in the MOMA group (P=1.000). Anastomotic stenosis was documented in 4 and 2 patients in the MOMA and CDHA group, respectively (P=0.392). The 30-day operative mortality was 0% and no significant difference was demonstrated in postoperative complications within groups (P>0.05). Furthermore, the disease-free and overall survival was compared by means of Kaplan-Meier survival estimates and log-rank tests and no statistical difference was determined (P=0.5114 and P=0.7875, respectively). McKeown esophagogastrectomy with MOMA may be a feasible, effective and reproducible alternative with relatively satisfactory postoperative outcomes for the treatment of TE-SCC, providing shorter operation and anastomosis times, and less estimated intraoperative blood loss.
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.