ReviewFrontiers in pediatrics2024
Long-gap esophageal atresia: is native esophagus preservation always possible?
Review in Frontiers in pediatrics, 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.
- Surgical Strategies for Native Esophagus Preservation in Long-Gap Esophageal Atresia: A 20-Year Population-Based Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Transumbilical Laparoscopic-Assisted (TULA) Surgery for Treating Abdominal Pathologies in Newborns: A Retrospective Single-Center Experience.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Long-gap esophageal atresia: a single center experience.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Esophageal atresia (EA) is a congenital defect that causes esophageal discontinuity, often with an associated tracheo-esophageal fistula (TEF) in 70%-90% of cases. When the distance between esophageal ends precludes primary anastomosis, it results in long gap esophageal atresia (LGEA), complicating the surgical management. This study retrospectively reviewed LGEA cases from the past decade, treated with the goal of preserving the native esophagus, comparing surgical techniques and outcomes with current literature. Materials and methods: The data of patients treated for LGEA between 2013 and 2024 were collected from medical charts, focusing on patients treated with the preservation of their native esophagus. Results: Ten patients were enrolled for this study. All of them had a gap between the esophageal ends equal to or greater than three vertebral bodies. Four patients (40%) underwent a delayed primary anastomosis (DPA) procedure, while the remaining six (60%) underwent a traction staged repair. All patients were treated with open surgery. The follow-up period extended from 3 months to 10 years. Conclusion: Preserving the native esophagus in patients with LGEA is a challenging but feasible goal, with delayed primary anastomosis and traction techniques playing key roles. We advocate for the preservation of the native esophagus as the preferred approach for ensuring a high quality of life for patients, as it helps to avoid severe long-term complications associated with esophageal substitution.
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.