ArticleSurgical endoscopy2022
Gastric electric stimulator versus gastrectomy for the treatment of medically refractory gastroparesis.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Medical management and differential diagnosis of restrictive eating disorders in men: a case study report with co-produced recommendations.Journal of eating disorders · 2025Article
- Outcome of gastric electrical stimulator with and without pyloromyotomy for refractory gastroparesis.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGastric electrical stimulation (GES) and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) are known therapeutic options for medically refractory gastroparesis (MRG) although there are limited data comparing their outcomes. We aim to compare clinical outcomes between patients undergoing GES vs upfront LG for the treatment of MRG while examining factors associated with GES failure and conversion to LG.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 181 consecutive patients who underwent GES or LG for MRG at our institution from January 2003 to December 2017. Data collection consisted of chart review and follow-up telephone survey. Statistical analysis utilized Chi-squared, ANOVA, and multivariable logistic regression.
resultsOverall, 130 (72%) patients underwent GES and 51 (28%) LG as primary intervention. GES patients were more likely to have diabetic gastroparesis (GES 67% vs LG 39%, p < 0.001), while primary LG patients were more likely to have post-surgical gastroparesis (GES 5% vs LG 43%, p < 0.001). Postoperatively, primary LG patients had higher rates of major in-hospital morbidity events (GES 5% vs LG 18%, p = 0.017) and longer hospital stays (GES 3 vs LG 9 days, p < 0.001). However, over a mean 35-month follow-up period, there were no differences in the rates of major morbidity, readmissions, or mortality. Multivariable regression analysis revealed patients undergoing GES as a primary intervention were less likely to report improvement in symptoms on follow-up compared to primary LG patients OR 0.160 (95% CI 0.048-0.532). Additionally, patients who converted to LG from GES were more likely to have post-surgical gastroparesis as the primary etiology.
conclusionGES as a first-line surgical treatment of MRG was associated with worse outcomes compared to LG. Post-surgical etiology was associated with an increased likelihood of GES failure, and in such patients, upfront gastrectomy may be a superior alternative to GES. Further studies are needed to determine patient selection for operative treatment of MRG.
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.