ArticleJTCVS techniques2024
Surgical cervicothoracic-flap repair of neoesophagus-airway fistula after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: A retrospective cohort study.
Article in JTCVS techniques, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Late-onset thoracogastric airway fistula after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a narrative review.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Review
- Surgical repair of benign thoracogastric airway fistula after esophagectomy using a pedicled myocutaneous flap.Journal of thoracic disease · 2024Article
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate outcomes of surgical repair of postesophagectomy neoesophagus-airway fistulas (NEAFs). Methods: We retrospectively included consecutive patients with NEAF managed by various techniques at our center between August 2009 and July 2021. Result: Of the 11 patients (median age, 60 years; interquartile range, 58, 62), 4 had received induction chemoradiotherapy and 4 others induction chemotherapy. NEAF was mainly a complication of anastomotic leakage (n = 6) or attempted stenosis treatment (n = 3). The airway mainly involved was the trachea (n = 8). Airway defects were repaired by resection-anastomosis (n = 5), perforator flaps (n = 4), pedicled pericardium (n = 1), and/or direct suturing (n = 2). Gastric conduit defects were repaired by perforator flaps (n = 6), direct suturing (n = 2), or pedicled pericardium (n = 1). Of the 7 perforator flaps, 4 were internal mammary-artery, two dorsal intercostal-artery, and one supraclavicular-artery flaps. After a median follow-up of 100 months, 2 patients died on early postoperative course from NEAF repair failure and 3 from late NEAF recurrence at 4, 11, and 33 months. Among the remaining 6 patients, 1 died from local tumoral recurrence at 13 months, 1 was last on follow-up at 27 months, alive and eating normally. The other 4 were free from NEAF recurrence and dysphagia or swallowing disorder at 50 months' follow-up. These 4 results were obtained thanks to perforator flap interposition and airway resection anastomosis. Conclusions: Surgical NEAF repair using perforator flap interposition may provide satisfactory long-term function after strong prehabilitation.
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.