ReviewObesity surgery2022
Nutritional Support and Duration of Drainage Recommendations for Endoscopic Internal Drainage: Review of the Literature and Initial Experience.
Review in Obesity surgery, 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.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAnastomotic leaks following foregut surgery pose a difficult scenario for surgeons. While definitive surgical options are more invasive and may result in diversion requiring subsequent surgeries, endoscopic management of these leaks has been shown to work as an alternative platform for management. An evolving option is endoscopic internal drainage. We have reviewed our experience using endoscopic internal drainage and report our outcomes. MATERIALS AND
methodsAn institution review board approved prospectively gathered database was used to identify all patients undergoing endoscopic internal drainage following esophageal and gastric leaks. Patient demographics, sentinel operation causing the leak, and outcomes of therapy were collected. The rate of healing and complications with the drainage catheter in place were the primary endpoints.
resultsSixteen patients were identified (5 male, 11 female) that underwent endoscopic internal drainage with a mean age of 48 and mean BMI of 30.8. Overall success rate was 69% (11/16), where 4 patients required a definitive surgery, and one healed with endoluminal vacuum therapy. Of the 4 failures, 1 patient required esophagojejunostomy, 2 patients required a fistulojejunostomy, and one required a partial gastrectomy. A total of 12 patients (75%) had a prior endoscopic procedure that was unsuccessful. The mean duration of drainage catheter in place was 48 days. While the catheter was in place, 4 patients were allowed minimal PO intake in conjunction with total parenteral nutrition or tube feeds. The rest of the patients were strict NPO with other means of nutrition. There were no complications with the drainage catheters and no deaths.
conclusionLeaks following esophagogastric surgery are difficult to manage; however, endoscopic internal drainage has been shown to be effective. Duration of the technique should be around 6 to 8 weeks with nutritional support guided by the comfort of the managing clinician.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35218510What 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.