ArticleJournal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA2023
Comparison of wide and narrow gastric conduit in esophageal cancer surgery.
Article in Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundGastric conduit is most widely used method for esophageal reconstruction. Despite its popularity, certain complications, such as anastomotic leakage and strictures, remain to be resolved. In the present study, we reviewed the outcomes of narrow gastric conduit compared to wide gastric conduit reconstruction.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed 493 patients with esophageal cancer who received esophagectomy with reconstruction in Taichung Veteran General Hospital, Taiwan between January 2010 and December 2019. We performed gastric conduit reconstruction with two different methods, narrow gastric conduit made of multistaples (more than four staples) and wide gastric conduit made of two or three staples. Among the 493 patients, 170 patients underwent wide gastric conduit formation and 323 patients underwent narrow gastric conduit. After propensity score matching, 140 patients from each group were matched by 1:1.
resultsThe average anastomotic leakage rate is 80 of 493 (16.23%). The leakage rate, length of hospital stay, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and ICU stay were significantly lower in the narrow gastric conduit group than in the wide gastric conduit group. The need for postoperation dilatation was significantly higher in wide gastric conduit group (19.41% vs 11.76%, p = 0.0217), and the time to first dilatation was similar in both groups ( p = 0.9808). Similar results were observed even after propensity score matching. In univariate analysis, the narrow gastric conduit, circular stapler, video-assisted thoracic surgery, and laparoscopic surgery were associated with a reduced risk of anastomotic leakage. However, these factors are not statistically significant in a multivariate logistic regression analysis.
conclusionThe narrow gastric conduit is not inferior to the wide gastric conduit and can be considered an alternative option for gastric conduit preparation.
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.