ArticleSurgical endoscopy2024
Endoscopic self-expandable metal stent versus endoscopy vacuum therapy for traumatic esophageal perforations: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Outcomes after esophageal perforation: A tertiary referral center series.Surgery today · 2026Article
- Stenting Versus Endoscopic Vacuum Therapy for Anastomotic Leakage After Esophago-Gastric Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Classification of the oesophageal perforation.European journal of medical research · 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
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTraumatic esophageal perforations (TEP) are a grave medical condition and require immediate intervention. Techniques such as Esophageal Self-Expandable Metal Stent (E-SEMS) and Endoscopic Vacuum Therapy (EVT) show promise in reducing tissue damage and controlling esophageal leakage. The present study aims to compare the application of EVT to E-SEMS placement in TEP.
methodsRetrospective cohort study valuated 30 patients with TEP. The E-SEMS and EVT groups were assessed for time of hospitalization, treatment duration, costs, and clinical outcome.
resultsPatients treated with EVT (24.4 ± 13.2) demonstrated significantly shorter treatment duration (p < 0.005) compared to the group treated with E-SEMS (45.8 ± 12.9) and patients submitted to E-SEMS demonstrated a significant reduction (p = 0.02) in the time of hospitalization compared to the EVT (34 ± 2 vs 82 ± 5 days). Both groups demonstrated a satisfactory discharge rate (E-SEMS 93.7% vs EVT 71.4%) but did not show statistically significant difference (p = 0.3155). E-SEMS treatment had a lower mean cost than EVT (p < 0.05). Descriptive statistics were utilized, arranged in table form, where frequencies, percentages, mean, median, and standard deviation of the study variables were calculated and counted. The Fisher's Exact Test was used to evaluate the relationship between two categorical variables. To evaluate differences between means and central points, the parametric t-test was utilized. Comparisons with p value up to 0.05 were considered significant.
conclusionE-SEMS showed a shorter time of hospitalization, but a longer duration of treatment compared to EVT. The placement of E-SEMS and EVT had the same clinical outcome. Treatment with E-SEMS had a lower cost compared with EVT.
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.