Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35262844›Full record

SynthesisUpdates in surgery2022

Prophylactic endoluminal vacuum therapy after major gastrointestinal surgery: a systematic review.

Olga Adamenko, Carlo Ferrari, Stefan Seewald, Jan Schmidt

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Updates in surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Validation of mortality risk scores after esophagectomy.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Endoscopic vacuum therapy.iGIE : innovation, investigation and insights · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Endoscopic Vacuum Therapy: When and How to Use It?GE Portuguese journal of gastroenterology
    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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Olga AdamenkoHirslanden Hospitals, Zürich, Switzerland.
Carlo FerrariHirslanden Hospitals, Zürich, Switzerland. dott.ferraricarlo@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5118-2340
Stefan SeewaldHirslanden Hospitals, Zürich, Switzerland.
Jan SchmidtHirslanden Hospitals, Zürich, Switzerland.
Klinik Hirslanden · CHUniversity of Milan · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the last decade, endoluminal vacuum therapy (eVAC) has emerged as an effective treatment for anastomotic leak (AL); however, little is known regarding its prophylactic use. In this systematic review we evaluated overall outcomes in patients undergoing major gastrointestinal surgery and treated with prophylactic eVAC. A systematic review of English articles on four electronic databases was performed according to the PRISMA statement up until January 2022. References of selected articles were manually screened to identify relevant missing papers. Primary endpoints were AL and mortality rates estimates. Secondary endpoints included analysis of eVAC-associated morbidity, treatment duration, long-term complications, and general indications for the eVAC management in the perioperative period. A total of 11 studies (5 case reports, 5 retrospective case series and a retrospective, case-control study) were included in the analysis. AL ranged from 0 to 25%. No major eVAC-associated complications were observed, except for sponge dislocation or obstruction. Overall mortality ranged between 0 and 12.5%; however, these fatalities were neither related to the use of eVAC, nor to AL-associated complications. The most frequent long-term complication was anastomotic stenosis responsive to endoscopic dilatation in most cases. The operating negative pressure ranged from -25 to -125 mmHg among different papers. In all studies but two, prophylactic eVAC was applied to anastomoses at high risk of dehiscence based on the subjective evaluation of the leading surgeon. In conclusion, prophylactic eVAC is safe and it could lead to potential benefit for prevention of AL, especially in high-risk anastomoses.

Indexed as

Digestive System Surgical ProceduresNegative-Pressure Wound TherapyAnastomosis, SurgicalAnastomotic LeakCase-Control StudiesHumansRetrospective StudiesAnastomosisEndoluminalGastrointestinalPreemptiveProphylacticRiskSurgeryVacuum

Identifiers

PMID35262844
OpenAlexW4221050130

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.