Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2023
Randomized controlled trial of intravenous sedation vs general anesthesia for esophageal dilation with percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in esophageal cancer patients.
Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Comparison of enteral nutrition methods with weight improvement in patients with T4b esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.Molecular and clinical oncology · 2025Article
- Comparison of different pain management strategies during the perioperative period of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a retrospective cohort study.Perioperative medicine (London, England) · 2025Article
- Comparison of safety of general anesthesia and intravenous sedation during third-molar extraction surgery.Scientific reports · 2024Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEsophageal squamous cell cancer (ESCC) is mostly diagnosed in its later stages, when patients present with dysphagia and weight loss. Esophageal dilation with percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is a common surgical procedure in patients with locally advanced ESCC because of tumor obstruction and enteral nutrition support during neoadjuvant or definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT). Esophageal dilation with PEG is widely performed under general anesthesia (GA) with endotracheal intubation. AIM OF THE STUDY: To determine the overall success rate of completing this procedure using intravenous (IV) sedation with dexmedetomidine (DEX) relative to GA and to compare its perioperative conditions, including procedure times, pain scores (visual analog scale), adverse events, and costs. SETTINGS: Songklanagarind Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Thailand. PATIENTS AND
methodsProspective randomized controlled trial (RCT) of locally advanced ESCC patients who had dysphagia and needed esophageal dilation with PEG between January 2020 and December 2021. Esophageal dilation (using a Savary-Gilliard dilator) and PEG were performed using the pull technique.
resultsSeventy patients were randomly assigned to either the DEX group (n = 34) or the GA group (n = 36). All patients in both groups underwent successful surgery. The DEX group had a significantly shorter procedure time, lower procedure cost, and lower total hospital cost than the GA group. However, there were no significant between-group differences in pain scores or length of hospital stay. There were no serious adverse events in either group; however, the GA group had some incidences of sore throat, transient hoarseness, and atelectasis.
conclusionThis study found that IV sedation with DEX during esophageal dilation with PEG was as effective and safe as using GA.
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.