Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34164544›Full record

ReviewAnnals of translational medicine2021

A narrative review of esophageal tissue engineering and replacement: where are we?

Lynn Model, Ory Wiesel

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of translational medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Tissue Engineering for Gastrointestinal and Genitourinary Tracts.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    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

2 authors.

Lynn ModelDepartment of Pediatric Surgery, Maimonides Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY 11219, USA.
Ory WieselDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Maimonides Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY 11219, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Long-gap esophageal defects, whether congenital or acquired, are very difficult to manage. Any significant surgical peri-esophageal dissection that is performed to allow for potential stretching of two ends of a defect interrupts the esophageal blood supply and leads to complications such as leak and stricture, even in the youngest, healthiest patients. The term "congenital" applied to these defects refers mainly to long-gap esophageal atresia (LGA). Causes of acquired long-segment esophageal disruption include recurrent leaks and fistulae after primary repair, refractory GERD, caustic ingestions, cancer, and strictures. 5,000-10,000 patients per year in the US require esophageal replacement. Gastric, colonic, and jejunal pull-up surgeries are fraught with high rates of both short and long term complications thus creating a space for a better option. Since the 1970's many groups around the world have been unsuccessfully attempting esophageal replacement with tissue-engineered grafts in various animal models. But, recent advances in these models are now combining novel technologic advances in materials bioscience, stem-cell therapies, and transplantation and are showing increasing promise to human translational application. Transplantation has been heretofore unsuccessful, but given modern improvements in transplant microsurgery and immunosuppressive medications, pioneering trials in animal models are being undertaken now. These rapidly evolving medical innovations will be reviewed here.

Indexed as

esophageal atresiaesophageal replacementesophageal transplantationEsophagustissue engineering

Identifiers

PMID34164544
PMCPMC8184476

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.