ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract2023
Preoperative Esophageal Stenting and 5-Year Survival in Patients Undergoing Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: a Population-Based Nationwide Study from Finland.
Article in Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Malignant esophageal perforation with pleural empyema: a successful robotic esophagectomy with primary reconstruction - a case report.International journal of surgery case reports · 2026Article
- Interpretable machine learning models to predict survival in esophageal cancer: a study based on the SEER database and external validation in China.Frontiers in physiology · 2025Article
- Nutritional Status and the Outcomes of Endoscopic Stenting in Benign and Malignant Diseases of Esophagus.Nutrients · 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
20 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPreoperative esophageal stenting is proposed to have a negative effect on outcomes. The aim was to compare a 5-year survival in patients undergoing esophagectomy for esophageal cancer with and without preoperative esophageal stent in a population-based nationwide cohort from Finland. The secondary outcome was 90-day mortality.
methodsThis study included curatively intended esophagectomies for esophageal cancer in Finland between 1999 and 2016, with follow-up until December 31, 2019. Cox proportional hazards models provided hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of overall 5-year and 90-day mortality. Model 1 was adjusted for age, sex, year of the surgery, comorbidities, histology, pathological stage, and neoadjuvant therapy. Model 2 included also albumin level and BMI.
resultOf 1064 patients, a total of 134 patients underwent preoperative stenting and 930 did not. In both adjusted models 1 and 2, higher 5-year mortality was seen in patients with preoperative stent with HRs of 1.29 (95% CI 1.00-1.65) and 1.25 (95% CI 0.97-1.62), respectively, compared to no stenting. The adjusted HR of 90-day mortality was 2.49 (95% CI 1.27-4.87) in model 1 and 2.49 (95% CI 1.25-4.99) in model 2. When including only neoadjuvant-treated patients, those with preoperative stent had a 5-year survival of 39.2% compared to 46.4% without stent (adjusted HR 1.34, 95% CI 1.00-1.80), and a 90-day mortality rate of 8.5% and 2.5% (adjusted HR 3.99, 95% CI 1.51-10.50). DISCUSSION: This nationwide study reports worse 5-year and 90-day outcomes in patients with preoperative esophageal stent. Since residual confounding remains possible, observed difference could be only an association rather than the cause.
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.