ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2022
Purse-indigitation mechanical anastomosis
Article in Annals of translational medicine, 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prognostic Factors and Outcomes in Elderly Esophagectomy Patients with Esophageal Cancer.Annals of surgical oncology · 2024Article
- Clinical analysis of tubular stapler-assisted nested anastomosis in the prevention of postoperative esophageal cancer complications.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Postoperative anastomosis-related complication rates remain high in patients undergoing McKeown esophagectomy with cervical anastomosis, and the optimal anastomotic technique remains under debate. We describe a new method of anastomosis, referred to as purse-indigitation mechanical anastomosis (PIMA) by reinforcing esophagogastric anastomosis, which can be performed after minimally invasive surgery. This study was designed to compare its feasibility, efficacy, and safety with those of traditional mechanical anastomosis (TMA). Methods: Between September 2020 and January 2022, 264 patients undergoing McKeown esophagectomy at a single center were included. Demographic data, including patient age, sex, diagnosis, neoadjuvant chemotherapy/radiation therapy in cases of malignancy, comorbidities, and operation time, anastomotic time, estimated blood loss, post‑operative complications were collected. Their medical records were retrospectively reviewed, analyzed and compared between the PIMA and TMA cohorts. Results: The baseline comparability of the PIMA and TMA before the comparisons is no statistical difference. Univariable analysis revealed significantly decreased anastomotic leak rate with PIMA compared to TMA (4.10% Conclusions: PIMA is feasible, safe to perform, and demonstrated a leak rate less than half that of TMA in this study. PIMA may represent a superior alternative to standard esophagogastric cervical anastomosis techniques. Larger sample size and long-term survival are required to fully evaluate PIMA.
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.