Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36836644›Full record

ReviewLife (Basel, Switzerland)2023

Endoscopic Vacuum Therapy (EVT) versus Self-Expandable Metal Stent (SEMS) for Anastomotic Leaks after Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Francesco Vito Mandarino, Alberto Barchi, Ferdinando D'Amico, Lorella Fanti, Francesco Azzolini, Edi Viale, Dario Esposito, Riccardo Rosati, Gionata Fiorino, Willem Adrianus Bemelman and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
12.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. [Endoscopic Treatments in Perforation or Fistula in Upper Gastrointestinal Tract].The Korean journal of helicobacter and upper gastrointestinal research · 2024
    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

15 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Francesco Vito MandarinoDivision of Gastroenterology and Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, 20132 Milan, Italy.
Alberto BarchiDivision of Gastroenterology and Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, 20132 Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-0179-8929
Ferdinando D'AmicoDivision of Gastroenterology and Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, 20132 Milan, Italy.
Lorella FantiDivision of Gastroenterology and Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, 20132 Milan, Italy.
Francesco AzzoliniDivision of Gastroenterology and Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, 20132 Milan, Italy.
Edi VialeDivision of Gastroenterology and Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, 20132 Milan, Italy.
Dario EspositoDivision of Gastroenterology and Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, 20132 Milan, Italy.
Riccardo RosatiDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, 20132 Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-2608-5749
Gionata FiorinoDivision of Gastroenterology and Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, 20132 Milan, Italy.
Willem Adrianus BemelmanDivision of Gastroenterology and Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, 20132 Milan, Italy.
Ugo ElmoreDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, 20132 Milan, Italy.
Lavinia BarbieriDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, 20132 Milan, Italy.
Francesco PuccettiDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, 20132 Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-6638-6880
Sabrina Gloria Giulia TestoniDivision of Gastroenterology and Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, 20132 Milan, Italy.
Silvio DaneseDivision of Gastroenterology and Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, 20132 Milan, Italy.
Vita-Salute San Raffaele University · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEndoscopic treatment of post-esophagectomy/gastrectomy anastomotic dehiscence includes Self-Expandable Metal Stents (SEMS), which have represented the "gold standard" for many years, and Endoscopic Vacuum Therapy (EVT), which was recently introduced, showing promising results. The aim of the study was to compare outcomes of SEMS and EVT in the treatment of post-esophagectomy/gastrectomy anastomotic leaks, focusing on oncologic surgery.

methodsA systematic search was performed on Pubmed and Embase, identifying studies comparing EVT versus SEMS for the treatment of leaks after upper gastro-intestinal surgery for malignant or benign pathologies. The primary outcome was the rate of successful leak closure. A meta-analysis was conducted, performing an a priori-defined subgroup analysis for the oncologic surgery group.

resultsEight retrospective studies with 357 patients were eligible. Overall, the EVT group showed a higher success rate (odd ratio [OR] 2.58, 95% CI 1.43-4.66), a lower number of devices (pooled mean difference [pmd] 4.90, 95% CI 3.08-6.71), shorter treatment duration (pmd -9.18, 95% CI -17.05--1.32), lower short-term complication (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.18-0.71) and mortality rates (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.24-0.92) compared to stenting. In the oncologic surgery subgroup analysis, no differences in the success rate were found (OR 1.59, 95% CI 0.74-3.40, I

conclusionsOverall, EVT has been revealed to be more effective and less burdened by complications compared to stenting. In the oncologic surgery subgroup analysis, efficacy rates were similar between the two groups. Further prospective data need to define a unique management algorithm for anastomotic leaks.

Indexed as

endoscopic vacuum therapyesophagectomyleakagesmeta-analysisstenting

Identifiers

PMID36836644
PMCPMC9968149
OpenAlexW4317622324

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.