ArticleSurgical endoscopy2023
Totally mechanical Collard versus circular stapled cervical esophagogastric anastomosis for minimally invasive esophagectomy.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Impact of Staple-Line Oversewing in Totally Mechanical Collard Cervical Anastomosis for Esophageal Cancer.Cancers · 2026Article
- Comparison of anastomotic stricture rates between 23- and 25-mm powered circular staplers in cervical esophagogastric anastomosis: a propensity-matched study.Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society · 2026Article
- Comparison of the subtotal and narrow gastric conduit for cervical esophagogastrostomy after esophagectomy in esophageal cancer patients: a propensity score-matched analysis.Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society · 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrevious studies have proposed that the totally mechanical Collard (TMC) method may reduce anastomotic leakage and stricture. This study aimed to compare the TMC method and the circular stapled (CS) method for cervical anastomosis after minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) for esophageal cancer.
methodsFrom May 2017 to September 2020, 308 patients (165 in the CS group and 143 in the TMC group) were included in this study. The primary endpoints were anastomotic leakage and anastomotic stricture within 12 months. Propensity score matching was used to control potential selection bias.
resultsAnastomotic leak, anastomotic stricture, and refractory stricture (≥ 3 dilations) occurred in 30 (9.7%), 28 (9.1%), and 18 (5.8%) patients, respectively. The rate of anastomotic leak was similar in the CS and TMC methods (9.7 vs. 9.8%; P = 0.978), but anastomotic stricture (3.5 vs. 13.9%; P = 0.001) and refractory stricture (2.8 vs. 9.1%, P = 0.022) occurred less frequently in the TMC method. Propensity score matching yielded 128 patient pairs and confirmed these results. Multivariable analyses found that CS method, anastomotic leakage, and diabetes were independent predictors for both anastomotic stricture and refractory stricture. Subgroup analysis revealed that for patients with anastomotic leakage, the postoperative hospital stay in the TMC group was significantly longer than that in the CS group.
conclusionIn cervical anastomosis after MIE, the TMC method is superior to the CS method regarding anastomotic stricture and refractory stricture formation. However, compared to the CS method, the TMC method cannot lower the probability of anastomotic leakage, and anastomotic leakage with the TMC method requires a longer healing time.
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.