Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36828030›Full record

Trial reportEndoscopy2023

Endoscopic vacuum therapy for esophageal perforation: a multicenter retrospective cohort study.

Joanna Luttikhold, Lisanne M D Pattynama, Stefan Seewald, Stefan Groth, Bernhard K Morell, Christian A Gutschow, Satoshi Ida, Magnus Nilsson, Wietse J Eshuis, Roos E Pouw

Abstract readMulticenter StudyClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Endoscopy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. [Esophageal perforation: surgical outcomes in a referral center].Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Endoscopic vacuum therapy.iGIE : innovation, investigation and insights · 2024
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Joanna Luttikhold *Division of Surgery, Department of Clinical Science Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet, and Department of Upper Abdominal Diseases, Stockholm, Sweden.
Lisanne M D Pattynama *Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4136-4778
Stefan SeewaldCentre of Gastroenterology, Klinik Hirslanden, Zürich, Switzerland.
Stefan GrothCentre of Gastroenterology, Klinik Hirslanden, Zürich, Switzerland.
Bernhard K MorellDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Universitätsspital, Zürich, Switzerland.
Christian A GutschowDepartment of Visceral and Transplant Surgery, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Satoshi IdaDivision of Surgery, Department of Clinical Science Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet, and Department of Upper Abdominal Diseases, Stockholm, Sweden.
Magnus NilssonDivision of Surgery, Department of Clinical Science Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet, and Department of Upper Abdominal Diseases, Stockholm, Sweden.
Wietse J EshuisDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Roos E PouwDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEndoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT) is a novel treatment for esophageal perforations. This study aimed to describe initial experience with EVT of esophageal perforations due to iatrogenic cause, Boerhaave syndrome, or other perforations not related to prior upper gastrointestinal surgery.

methodsData from patients treated with EVT for esophageal perforation at five hospitals in three European countries, between January 2018 and October 2021, were retrospectively collected. The primary end point was successful defect closure by EVT, with or without the use of other endoscopic treatment modalities. Secondary end points included mortality and adverse events.

results27 patients were included (median age 71 years). The success rate was 89 % (24/27, 95 %CI 77-100). EVT failed in three patients: two deceased during EVT (septic embolic stroke, pulmonary embolism) and one underwent esophagectomy due to a persisting defect. Two adverse events occurred: one iatrogenic defect expansion during sponge exchange and one hemorrhage during sponge removal. Median treatment duration was 12 days (interquartile range [IQR] 6-16) with 1 sponge exchange (IQR 1-3).

conclusionEVT is a promising organ-preserving treatment for esophageal perforations, with a success rate of 89 %. More experience with the technique and indications will likely improve success rates.

Indexed as

Esophageal PerforationNegative-Pressure Wound TherapyAgedAnastomotic LeakEndoscopyHumansIatrogenic DiseaseRetrospective StudiesTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID36828030
PMCPMC10465237

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.