ReviewTranslational cancer research2023
A narrative review of anastomotic leak in the Ivor Lewis esophagectomy: expected, accepted, but preventable.
Review in Translational cancer research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Simultaneous Endoluminal Wound Vacuum and Stent Therapy for Large Esophageal Leaks After Esophagectomy.Annals of thoracic surgery short reports · 2026Article
- Does the Dutch trial prove we should "say no" to active surveillance? An in-depth review of the 2025 study on the treatment of esophageal cancer.JTCVS open · 2025Article
- Stop Canceling Surgery for Esophageal Cancer: An Analysis of Treatment Related Mortality in 60 000 Patients.Journal of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- The impact of postoperative atrial fibrillation on complications and mortality following Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Review
- A practical approach to the post esophagectomy CT: expected postoperative anatomy and anatomical approach to associated complication.Emergency radiology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objective: Anastomotic leak (AL) remains a common and highly morbid complication after Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy. Leak is associated with increased morbidity, mortality, strictures and even cancer recurrence. Unfortunately, despite advances in surgical technique and perioperative care, the reported frequency of AL has remained largely unchanged. Methods: A PubMed search for all English-language articles that discuss Ivor Lewis esophagectomy, AL, risk factors, and outcomes was conducted from 1901 to 2023 prioritizing research from randomized trials that evaluated outcomes from patients undergoing esophagectomy. Key Content and Findings: This narrative review will discuss the prevailing literature on AL, risk factors and outcomes with a focus on its relationship to the Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (ILE). In particular, we emphasize that the gastric conduit, as commonly created for most esophagectomy procedures, is inherently vulnerable to ischemia. We will show trends in the literature that have contributed to the high rate of postoperative complications, with a focus on the AL. In addition, we propose that the traditional Ivor Lewis procedure itself is a risk factor for AL. We review a surgical alternative that increases blood supply of the conduit, and is associated with reduced leak, no strictures, and improved surgical outcomes. Conclusions: Multiple factors contribute to AL after esophagectomy; including several current surgical practices. We believe that some of them, especially the commonly accepted approach to the gastric conduit, can be modified to optimize tissue perfusion. With further investigation, we may reduce the incidence of short and long-term anastomotic complications and improve surgical outcomes.
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.