Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37215348›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in surgery2023

Clinical implantation of 92 VACStents in the upper gastrointestinal tract of 50 patients-applicability and safety analysis of an innovative endoscopic concept.

J Lange, J Knievel, D Wichmann, G Kähler, F Wiedbrauck, T Hellmich, M Kandler, J Bernhardt, D Scholz, T Beyna and 7 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
6.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Endoscopic vacuum therapy.iGIE : innovation, investigation and insights · 2024
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Endoscopic vacuum therapy in the upper gastrointestinal tract.Frontiers in gastroenterology (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  14. Endoscopic Vacuum Therapy: When and How to Use It?GE Portuguese journal of gastroenterology
    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

17 authors at 12 institutions in 1 country.

J LangeDepartment of Abdominal, Tumor, Transplant and Vascular Surgery, Cologne-Merheim Medical Center, Witten/Herdecke University, Cologne, Germany.
J KnievelDepartment of Abdominal, Tumor, Transplant and Vascular Surgery, Cologne-Merheim Medical Center, Witten/Herdecke University, Cologne, Germany.
D WichmannDepartment for Visceral, General and Transplant Surgery, Tübingen University Hospital, Tübingen, Germany.
G KählerMultispecialty Endoscopy Center, Mannheim Medical Center, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany.
F WiedbrauckDepartment of Gastroenterology, AKH Celle, Celle, Germany.
T HellmichDepartment of Gastroenterology, Städtisches Klinikum Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
M KandlerDepartment of Gastroenterology, Städtisches Klinikum Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
J BernhardtDepartment of Surgery, Klinikum Suedstadt Rostock, Rostock, Germany.
D ScholzDepartment of Gastroenterology and Metabolism, Ameos Klinikum Am Bürgerpark, Bremerhaven, Germany.
T BeynaDepartment of General Internal Medicine and Gastroenterology, Evangelisches Krankenhaus Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
J HausmannDepartment of Gastroenterology/Internal Medicine, St. Vinzenz-Hospital Hanau, Hanau, Germany.
E WediDivision of Gastroenterology, Gastrointestinal Oncology and Interventional Endoscopy, Sana Clinic Offenbach, Offenbach, Germany.
M EllrichmannDepartment of Interdisciplinary Endoscopy, Medical Department 1, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany.
U HügleDepartment of Gastroenterology, Cologne-Holweide and Merheim Medical Center, Cologne, Germany.
A J DormannDepartment of Gastroenterology, Cologne-Holweide and Merheim Medical Center, Cologne, Germany.
C F EisenbergerDepartment of Abdominal, Tumor, Transplant and Vascular Surgery, Cologne-Merheim Medical Center, Witten/Herdecke University, Cologne, Germany.
M M HeissDepartment of Abdominal, Tumor, Transplant and Vascular Surgery, Cologne-Merheim Medical Center, Witten/Herdecke University, Cologne, Germany.
Witten/Herdecke University · DEKrankenhaus Köln-Holweide · DEStädtisches Klinikum Dresden · DEEvangelisches Krankenhaus Düsseldorf · DEHeidelberg University · DEInstitute of Pathology Celle · DEKlinikum Bremerhaven-Reinkenheide · DEKlinikum Hanau · DEKlinikum Südstadt Rostock · DESana Klinikum Offenbach · DEUniversity Children's Hospital Tübingen · DEUniversity of Lübeck · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT) has emerged as a promising treatment option for upper gastrointestinal wall defects, offering benefits such as evacuation of secretions and removal of wound debris by suction, and reduction and healing of wound cavities to improve clinical outcomes. In contrast, covered stents have a high rate of migration and lack functional drainage, while endoluminal EVT devices obstruct the GI tract. The VACStent is a novel device that combines the benefits of EVT and stent placement. Its design features a fully covered Nitinol-stent within a polyurethane sponge cylinder, enabling EVT while maintaining stent patency. Methods: This study analyzes the pooled data from three different prospective study cohorts to assess the safe practicality of VACStent placement, complete leak coverage, and effective suction-treatment of esophageal leaks. By pooling the data, the study aims to provide a broader base for analysis. Results: In total, trans-nasal derivation of the catheter, suction and drainage of secretion via vacuum pump were performed without any adversity. In the pooled study cohort of 92 VACStent applications, the mean stent indwelling time was 5.2 days (range 2-8 days) without any dislocation of the device. Removal of the VACStent was done without complication, in one case the sponge was lost but subsequently fully preserved. Minor local erosions and bleeding and one subsequent hemostasis were recorded unfrequently during withdrawal of the device (5.4%, 5/92) but no perforation or pressure ulcer. Despite a high heterogeneity regarding primary disease and pretreatments a cure rate of 76% (38/50 patients) could be achieved. Discussion: In summary, insertion and release procedure was regarded as easy and simple with a low potential of dislocation. The VACStent was well tolerated by the patient while keeping the drainage function of the sponge achieving directly a wound closure by continuous suction and improving the healing process. The implantation of the VACStent provides a promising new procedure for improved clinical treatment in various indications of the upper gastrointestinal wall, which should be validated in larger clinical studies.

Indexed as

anastomotic leakage (AL) after esophagectomyendoscopic treatment by vacuum therapy (EVT)preemptive therapyupper gastrointestinal wall defectsVACStent

Identifiers

PMID37215348
PMCPMC10198570
OpenAlexW4377563981

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.