ArticleSurgical endoscopy2021
The addition of flexible endoscopic suturing to stenting for the management of transmural esophageal wall defects: a single tertiary center experience.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsEndoscopic stenting is the standard of care for full thickness esophageal wall defects. The aim of this study is to evaluate outcomes of endoscopic closure of esophageal defects using stenting, with or without endoscopic suturing.
methodsThis is a single-center retrospective study of patients with esophageal wall defects who underwent endoscopic interventions. Outcomes of stenting with or without endoscopic suturing of the defect were assessed. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used to examine factors associated with successful defect closure.
resultsOne hundred and fourteen patients with esophageal wall defects underwent 254 endoscopies with an overall complete closure rate of 75.8%. Twenty-three (20.2%) patients underwent primary closure using endoscopic suturing and subsequent esophageal stenting, while 91 (79.8%) underwent esophageal stenting only. The dual modality group (versus the stent-only group) had similar defect closure rates (84.2 vs. 73.8%, p = 0.55) and time to stent migration (37 vs. 12.5 days, p = 0.07), but was associated with longer procedure times (60 vs. 36 min, p < 0.01) and fewer additional endoscopic procedures (13.6 vs. 43.2%, p = 0.01). Stent suturing significantly decreased migration (35.5 vs. 58.5%, p = 0.04), was associated with fewer additional endoscopies (15.4 vs. 50%, p < 0.01) and reduced need for additional stents (7.7 vs. 34.3%, p < 0.01). On multivariate analysis, chronic defects (> four weeks old) were 81% less likely to close compared to acute (≤ 4 weeks) defects (OR 0.19, CI 0.04-0.77, p = 0.02), and large diameter stents (23 mm) were associated with higher odds of defect closure (OR 3.36, CI 1.02-11.4, p = 0.04).
conclusionEndoscopic treatment of esophageal wall defects is safe, effective, and more likely to be successful in acute defects using larger caliber stents. Stent suturing reduces migration, need for additional endoscopic procedures, and stent exchanges. Further comparative studies with larger cohorts are needed to validate our results.
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.