ArticleAnnals of gastroenterology
Efficacy of esophageal stents as a primary therapeutic option in spontaneous esophageal perforations: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.
Article in Annals of gastroenterology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic Approach and Therapeutic Management of Spontaneous Esophageal Perforation (Boerhaave's Syndrome): A Systematic Review and Individual Patient-Level Pooled Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Malignant esophageal perforation with pleural empyema: a successful robotic esophagectomy with primary reconstruction - a case report.International journal of surgery case reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Severity-guided management of esophageal perforation: a retrospective cohort study supporting a pragmatic treatment algorithm.World journal of emergency surgery : WJES · 2026Article
- Diagnostic challenges in boerhaave syndrome with bilateral pleural contamination: complementary roles of computed tomography, endoscopy, and video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Article
- Boerhaave Syndrome-Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Esophageal stenting and endoscopic vacuum therapy for esophageal defects: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Article
- A rare case of esophageal perforation following a choking episode with complicated course: management and outcomes.Journal of surgical case reports · 2025Article
- Article
- 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Spontaneous esophageal perforation traditionally mandates urgent surgical treatment. Lately, esophageal stents have been used to reduce the associated morbidity and mortality. The current systematic review aimed to assess the efficacy of stents as a primary treatment option in this scenario. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus and the Cochrane Library for studies published in the English language between 2000 and 2023. We included observational studies reporting on the use of stents, alongside conservative measures and drainage procedures, in patients with spontaneous esophageal perforations. Primary outcomes were sealing rate (persistent leak occlusion) and failure rate (mortality or conversion to a major surgical operation). Secondary outcomes included patients' presentation, sepsis, drainage procedures, and reinterventions. Results for primary outcomes were presented as pooled rates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using a random-effects model. Methodological quality was assessed using the MINORS score. Results: Eighteen studies involving 171 patients were included. Sealing rate was 86% (95%CI 77-93%) and failure rate was 14% (95%CI 7-22%). Weighted mortality rate was 6% (95%CI 2-13%), while conversion to surgical treatment was 2% (95%CI 0-9%). Late presentation was not related to a statistically significant increase in treatment failure (odds ratio 1.85, 95%CI 0.37-9.30; P=0.72). Drainage procedures were required for the majority of patients, with a high rate of surgical and endoscopic reinterventions. Conclusions: Our results imply that stents may offer an effective and safe alternative treatment for patients with spontaneous esophageal perforations. Additional endoscopic and surgical drainage procedures are frequently needed.
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.