Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35974057›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

Differences in fluid removal of different open-pore elements for endoscopic negative pressure therapy in the upper gastrointestinal tract.

Kai Tobias Jansen, Jürgen Hetzel, Carola Schulte, Nurgül Düzenli, Stefano Fusco, Emanuel Zerabruck, Eva Schmider, Nisar P Malek, Alfred Königsrainer, Dietmar Stüker and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

12 authors.

Kai Tobias JansenDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital of Tübingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Str. 3, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.
Jürgen HetzelDepartment of Internal Medicine VIII, Pulmonology and Oncology, University Hospital of Tübingen, Otfried-Müller-Str. 10, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.
Carola SchulteDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital of Tübingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Str. 3, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.
Nurgül DüzenliDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital of Tübingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Str. 3, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.
Stefano FuscoDepartment of Internal Medicine I, Gastroenterology, Hepatology, Gastrointestinal Oncology, Infectiology and Geriatrics, University Hospital of Tübingen, Otfried-Mueller-Str. 10, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.
Emanuel ZerabruckInterdisciplinary Endoscopic Unit, University Hospital of Tübingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Str. 6, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.
Eva SchmiderInterdisciplinary Endoscopic Unit, University Hospital of Tübingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Str. 6, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.
Nisar P MalekDepartment of Internal Medicine I, Gastroenterology, Hepatology, Gastrointestinal Oncology, Infectiology and Geriatrics, University Hospital of Tübingen, Otfried-Mueller-Str. 10, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.
Alfred KönigsrainerDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital of Tübingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Str. 3, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.
Dietmar StükerDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital of Tübingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Str. 3, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.
Christoph R WernerDepartment of Internal Medicine I, Gastroenterology, Hepatology, Gastrointestinal Oncology, Infectiology and Geriatrics, University Hospital of Tübingen, Otfried-Mueller-Str. 10, 72076, Tübingen, Germany. christoph.werner@med.uni-tuebingen.de.
Dörte WichmannDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital of Tübingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Str. 3, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Endoscopic negative pressure therapy is an effective treatment strategy for various defects of the gastrointestinal tract. The functional principle is based on an open-pore element, which is placed around a perforated drainage tube and connected to a vacuum source. The resulting open-pore suction device can undergo endoluminal or intracavitary placement. Different open-pore suction devices are used for endoscopic negative pressure therapy of upper gastrointestinal tract defects. Comparative analyses for features and properties of these devices are still lacking. Eight different (six hand-made devices and two commercial devices) open-pore suction devices for endoscopic negative pressure therapy of the upper gastrointestinal tract were used, amount fluid removed was evaluated. The evaluation parameters included the time to reach the target pressure, the time required to remove 100 ml of water, and the material resistance of the device. All open-pore suction devices are able to aspirate the target volume of fluids. The time to reach the target volume varied considerably. Target negative pressure was not achieved with all open-pore suction devices during the aspiration of fluids; however, there was no negative effect on suction efficiency. Of the measurement data, material resistance could be calculated for six open-pore elements. We present a simple experimental, nonphysiologically setup for open-pore suction devices used for endoscopic negative pressure therapy. The expected quantity of fluids secreted into the treated organs should affect open-pore suction device for endoscopic negative pressure therapy.

Indexed as

Upper Gastrointestinal TractDrainageEndoscopyGastrointestinal TractSuction

Identifiers

PMID35974057
PMCPMC9381550

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.