SynthesisBMC surgery2022
Comparison of the clinical outcomes after esophagectomy between intrathoracic anastomosis and cervical anastomosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Colon interposition after esophagectomy: a 15-year single-center experience.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2026Article
- Outcomes after laparoscopic transhiatal esophagectomy for siewert type I esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma: a retrospective cohort study.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2026Article
- Favorable outcomes with jejunal interposition without vascular anastomosis for esophagectomy in cancer patients: a single-center experience.BMC surgery · 2025Article
- Analysis of risk factors for anastomotic leakage after radical esophagectomy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Pilot Trial on Ischemic Conditioning of the Gastric Conduit in Esophageal Cancer: Feasibility and Impact on Anastomotic Leakage (TIGOAL-I).Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2024Article
- Effect of Intrathoracic or Cervical Anastomosis After Esophagectomy on Quality of Life.Annals of surgical 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
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesEsophageal cancer is a high-mortality disease. Esophagectomy is the most effective method to treat esophageal cancer, accompanied with a high incidence of post-operation complications. The anastomosis has a close connection to many severe post-operation complications. However, it remains controversial about the choice of intrathoracic anastomosis (IA) or cervical anastomosis (CA). The study was conducted to compare the clinical outcomes between the two approaches.
methodsWe searched databases for both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies comparing post-operation outcomes between IA and CA. Primary outcomes were the incidences of anastomotic leakage and mortality. Secondary outcomes were the incidences of anastomotic stenosis, pneumonia and re-operation.
resultsTwenty studies with a total of 7,479 patients (CA group: n = 3,183; IA group: n = 4296) were included. The results indicated that CA group had a higher incidence of anastomotic leakage than IA group (odds ratio [OR] = 2.05, 95% confidence intervals [CI] = 1.61-2.60, I
conclusionsIA might be a better anastomotic approach than CA, with a lower incidence of anastomosis leakage and no increase in short-term mortality. Significant heterogeneity and publication bias might limit the reliability of the results. More high-quality studies are needed to verify and update our findings.
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.