ArticleSurgical endoscopy2024
Safety and efficacy of conventional compared to segmented esophageal fully covered self-expanding metal stents: a retrospective multicenter case-control 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.
- Bronchoscopy-Guided Intratracheal Suture Repair of Recurrent Tracheoesophageal Fistula in an Adolescent.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Endobronchial Suture of Tracheoesophageal Fistula Through Rigid Bronchoscopy Without Tracheostomy: A Preliminary, Observational Retrospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Esophageal Stenting Using Laparogastroscopy Compared With Esophageal Endoscopic Stenting: Retrospective Analysis.Current health sciences journalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSegmented self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) are an alternative to conventional unsegmented SEMS in the treatment of esophageal strictures. Due to their segmented design, they may adapt better to the surrounding structures making them less likely to migrate or cause trauma. We examined if there are clinically relevant differences between segmented and conventional esophageal SEMS in benign and malignant stenosis in terms of their functionality and safety. PATIENTS AND
methodsWe performed a multicenter, retrospective case-control study of segmented and conventional SEMS implantations in esophageal stenosis. Outcome parameters were adverse events such as migration, occlusion, and severe complications (i.e., bleeding and perforation).
results79 segmented SEMS were identified and compared to 79 conventional SEMS implantations. Groups were similar in terms of age, gender, and etiology. We observed 13.9% severe complications (SEMS-associated clinically significant bleeding or perforation) in the conventional SEMS group compared to 3.8% in the segmented SEMS group. This difference was statistically significant (p = 0.025). Rates of migration and occlusion were similar between both groups. Likewise, there was no significant difference in terms of short-term (30 days) clinical success.
conclusionIn this first controlled analysis, segmented SEMS were associated with fewer severe clinical complications compared to conventional SEMS.
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.