Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38999371›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2024

VAC-Stent in the Treatment of Post-Esophagectomy Anastomotic Leaks: A New "Kid on the Block" Who Marries the Best of Old Techniques-A Review.

Giuseppe Dell'Anna, Lorella Fanti, Jacopo Fanizza, Rukaia Barà, Alberto Barchi, Ernesto Fasulo, Ugo Elmore, Riccardo Rosati, Vito Annese, Liboria Laterza and 4 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Boerhaave Syndrome-Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Giuseppe Dell'AnnaGastroenterology and Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Division, IRCCS San Raffaele Institute, Via Olgettina 60, 20132 Milan, Italy.
Lorella FantiGastroenterology and Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Division, IRCCS San Raffaele Institute, Via Olgettina 60, 20132 Milan, Italy.
Jacopo FanizzaGastroenterology and Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Division, IRCCS San Raffaele Institute, Via Olgettina 60, 20132 Milan, Italy.
Rukaia BaràGastroenterology and Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Division, IRCCS San Raffaele Institute, Via Olgettina 60, 20132 Milan, Italy.
Alberto BarchiGastroenterology and Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Division, IRCCS San Raffaele Institute, Via Olgettina 60, 20132 Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-0179-8929
Ernesto FasuloGastroenterology and Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Division, IRCCS San Raffaele Institute, Via Olgettina 60, 20132 Milan, Italy.
Ugo ElmoreGastrointestinal Surgery Unit, IRCCS San Raffaele Institute, Via Olgettina 60, 20132 Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-9652-1502
Riccardo RosatiFaculty of Medicine and Surgery, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Via Olgettina 56, 20132 Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-2608-5749
Vito AnneseGastroenterology and Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Division, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, Piazza Edmondo Malan 2, 20097 San Donato Milanese, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-0082-892X
Liboria LaterzaUnit of Gastroenterology, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, S. Orsola-Malpighi University Hospital, University of Bologna, Via Massarenti 9, 40138 Bologna, Italy.
Lorenzo FuccioUnit of Gastroenterology, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, S. Orsola-Malpighi University Hospital, University of Bologna, Via Massarenti 9, 40138 Bologna, Italy.
Francesco AzzoliniGastroenterology and Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Division, IRCCS San Raffaele Institute, Via Olgettina 60, 20132 Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-6547-5918
Silvio DaneseGastroenterology and Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Division, IRCCS San Raffaele Institute, Via Olgettina 60, 20132 Milan, Italy.
Francesco Vito MandarinoGastroenterology and Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Division, IRCCS San Raffaele Institute, Via Olgettina 60, 20132 Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-9931-7221

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Esophagectomy, while a pivotal treatment for esophageal cancer, is not without adverse events. Among these, anastomotic leak (AL) is the most feared complication, threatening patient lives and incurring significant healthcare costs. The management of AL is complex and lacks standardization. Given the high morbidity and mortality rates associated with redo-surgery, which poses risks for already fragile patients, various endoscopic treatments have been developed over time. Self-expandable metallic stents (SEMSs) were the most widely used treatment until the early 2000s. The mechanism of action of SEMSs includes covering the wall defect, protecting it from secretions, and promoting healing. In 2010, endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT) emerged as a viable alternative for treating ALs, quickly gaining acceptance in clinical practice. EVT involves placing a dedicated sponge under negative pressure inside or adjacent to the wall defect, aiming to clear the leak and promote granulation tissue formation. More recently, the VAC-Stent entered the scenario of endoscopic treatment of post-esophagectomy ALs. This device combines a fully covered SEMS with an integrated EVT sponge, blending the ability of SEMSs to exclude defects and maintain the patency of the esophageal lumen with the capacity of EVT to aspirate secretions and promote the formation of granulation tissue. Although the literature on this new device is not extensive, early results from the application of VAC-Stent have shown promising outcomes. This review aims to synthesize the preliminary efficacy and safety data on the device, thoroughly analyze its advantages over traditional techniques and disadvantages, explore areas for improvement, and propose future directions.

Indexed as

anastomotic leakendoscopic vacuum therapyesophagectomyself-expandable metal stentVAC-Stent

Identifiers

PMID38999371
PMCPMC11242239

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.