ArticleSurgical endoscopy2022
Is an objective evaluation essential for determining the therapeutic effect of laparoscopic surgery among patients with esophageal achalasia?
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2022. 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, 0 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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite a high degree of satisfaction with laparoscopic Heller-Dor surgery (LHD) for esophageal achalasia, some cases show no improvement in postoperative esophageal clearance. We investigated whether an objective evaluation is essential for determining the therapeutic effect of LHD.
methodsWe investigated the difference in symptoms, regarding esophageal clearance, using timed barium esophagogram (TBE), in 306 esophageal achalasia patients with high postoperative satisfaction who underwent LHD. Furthermore, these patients were divided into two groups, in accordance with the difference in postoperative esophageal clearance, in order to compare the preoperative pathophysiology, symptoms, and surgical results.
resultsAlthough the poor postoperative esophageal clearance group (117 cases, 38%) was mostly male and the ratio of Sigmoid type was high compared to the good postoperative esophageal clearance group (p = 0.046, p = 0.001, respectively); in patients with high surgical satisfaction, there was no difference in terms of preoperative symptom scores and surgical results. However, although the satisfaction level was high in the poor esophageal clearance group, the scores in terms of the postoperative dysphagia and vomiting were high (p = 0.0018 and p = 0.004, respectively). The AUC was 0.9842 upon ROC analysis regarding the presence or absence of clearance at 2 min following postoperative TBE and the postoperative feeling of difficulty swallowing score, with a cut-off value of 2 points (sensitivity: 88%, specificity: 100%) in cases with a high degree of surgical satisfaction.
conclusionThe esophageal clearance ability can be predicted by subjective evaluation, based on the postoperative symptom scores; so, an objective evaluation is not essential in cases with high surgical satisfaction.
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.