SynthesisVisceral medicine2022
Endoscopic Treatment Options for Gastrointestinal Leaks.
Synthesis in Visceral medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Endoluminal vacuum therapy for upper gastrointestinal leaks: safe, effective and minimally invasive - insights from a retrospective observational study.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Observational
- Predictors of Clinical Success in Patients Selected for Endoscopic Management of Gastrointestinal Transmural Defects.Endoscopy international open · 2026Article
- Presentation of a new preemptive endoscopic treatment concept in duodenal interventions exemplified by an iatrogenic duodenal perforation after percutaneous transrenal nephrostomy. English version.Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Article
- Endoscopic Closure Techniques for Perforations, Leaks, and Fistulae: Review Article.GE Portuguese journal of gastroenterology · 2025Review
- [Presentation of a new pre-emptive endoscopic treatment concept in duodenal interventions exemplified by an iatrogenic duodenal perforation after percutaneous transrenal nephrostomy. German version].Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Article
- The Role of Open-Pore Film Drainage Systems in Endoscopic Vacuum Therapy: Current Status and Review of the Literature.Visceral medicine · 2024Review
- Postoperative Management in Visceral Medicine.Visceral medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Spontaneous or postoperative gastrointestinal defects are still life-threatening complications with elevated morbidity and mortality. Recently, endoscopic treatment options - up and foremost endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT) - have become increasingly popular and have shown promising results in these patients. Methods: We performed an electronic systematic search of the MEDLINE databases (PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane) and searched for studies evaluating endoscopic options for the treatment of esophageal and colorectal leakages and/or perforations until March 2022. Results: The closure rate of both esophageal and colorectal defects by EVT is high and even exceeds the results of surgical revision in parts. Out of all endoscopic treatment options, EVT shows most evidence and appears to have the highest therapeutic success rates. Furthermore, EVT for both indications had a low rate of serious complications without relevant in-hospital mortality. In selected patients, EVT can be applied without fecal diversion and transferred to an outpatient setting. Conclusion: Despite multiple endoscopic treatment options, EVT is increasingly becoming the new gold standard in endoscopic treatment of extraperitoneal defects of the upper and lower GI tract with localized peritonitis or mediastinitis and without close proximity to major blood vessels. However, further prospective, comparative studies are needed to strengthen the current evidence.
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.