SynthesisGE Portuguese journal of gastroenterology2023
Anastomotic Leakages after Surgery for Gastroesophageal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Endoscopic versus Surgical Management.
Synthesis in GE Portuguese journal of gastroenterology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Endoscopic Vacuum Therapy: When and How to Use It?GE Portuguese journal of gastroenterologyReview
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: With the increase of esophageal and gastric cancer, surgery will be more often performed. Anastomotic leakage (AL) is one of the most feared postoperative complications of gastroesophageal surgery. It can be managed by conservative, endoscopic (such as endoscopic vacuum therapy and stenting), or surgical methods, but optimal treatment remains controversial. The aim of our meta-analysis was to compare (a) endoscopic and surgical interventions and (b) different endoscopic treatments for AL following gastroesophageal cancer surgery. Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis, with search in three online databases for studies evaluating surgical and endoscopic treatments for AL following gastroesophageal cancer surgery. Results: A total of 32 studies comprising 1,080 patients were included. Compared with surgical intervention, endoscopic treatment presented similar clinical success, hospital length of stay, and intensive care unit length of stay, but lower in-hospital mortality (6.4% [95% CI: 3.8-9.6%] vs. 35.8% [95% CI: 23.9-48.5%]. Endoscopic vacuum therapy was associated with a lower rate of complications (OR 0.348 [95% CI: 0.127-0.954]), shorter ICU length of stay (mean difference -14.77 days [95% CI: -26.57 to -2.98]), and time until AL resolution (17.6 days [95% CI: 14.1-21.2] vs. 39.4 days [95% CI: 27.0-51.8]) when compared with stenting, but there were no significant differences in terms of clinical success, mortality, reinterventions, or hospital length of stay. Conclusions: Endoscopic treatment, in particular endoscopic vacuum therapy, seems safer and more effective when compared with surgery. However, more robust comparative studies are needed, especially for clarifying which is the best treatment in specific situations (according to patient and leak characteristics).
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.