ArticleFrontiers in surgery2024
Mediastinal drainage combined with upper mediastinal re-tunneling vs. mediastinal drainage alone in McKeown esophagectomy of esophageal cancer: a retrospective study.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Although mediastinal drainage may lower the risk of anastomotic leakage, the incident rate of anastomotic leakage is still high. The current study aimed to compare the effects of mediastinal drainage combined with upper mediastinal re-tunneling with mediastinal drainage only on anastomotic leakage after McKeown esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Methods: From October 2018 to March 2021, 52 patients diagnosed as esophageal carcinoma were included in the study. 21 patients received mediastinal drainage combined with upper mediastinal re-tunneling (re-tunneling group) and 31 received mediastinal drainage only (standard group) after McKeown esophagectomy. The incidence rate of anastomotic leakage, mediastinal infection, chylothorax, thoracic infection, the peak value of leukocyte count and the mortality related to anastomotic leakage were compared between the two groups. Results: One (4.8%) patient in the re-tunneling group developed anastomotic leakage, and no patient experienced mediastinal infection or thoracic infection. Four (12.9%) patients in the standard group developed anastomotic leakage, and all these patients experienced mediastinal infection and thoracic infection ( Conclusion: Mediastinal drainage combined with upper mediastinal re-tunneling after McKeown esophagectomy for esophageal cancer may decrease the risk of anastomotic leakage, mediastinal and thoracic infection, reduce the inflammatory response of patients, but did not increase the mortality related to anastomotic leakage. Trial registration: The study was retrospectively registered.
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.