ArticleSurgical endoscopy2025
Outcomes of esophagectomy in patients with previous foregut surgery: a matched retrospective cohort study.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEsophagectomy is a challenging procedure indicated for esophageal cancer and complex benign esophageal conditions. The primary aim of this study was to determine the impact of previous foregut surgeries on postoperative outcomes following esophagectomy.
methodsA retrospective cohort study was performed on patients undergoing esophagectomy between March 1st, 2008, and December 17th, 2024. Two groups were identified, patients with previous foregut surgery (PFS) and patients without previous foregut surgery (No-PFS). PFS (N = 37) was matched in a 3:1 ratio to patients with No-PFS (N = 111) by age, gender, race, and smoking status with "nearest neighbor" method. Demographics and perioperative variables were collected and compared between both groups. Kaplan-Meier method estimated survival and freedom from long-term complications, such as anastomotic stricture and paraconduit hernia.
resultsOf 349 patients undergoing esophagectomy, 37 had PFS. These included 43% anti-reflux procedures, 35% Heller myotomy for achalasia, and 14% bariatric surgeries. Diagnosis of cancer was an indication for esophagectomy in 59.5% of cases. After matching, significant difference was found regarding operative time (PFS: 463 vs No-PFS: 426 min; p = 0.038). No difference was observed in conversions to open, early complications, reinterventions or leak rate (p value > 0.05). In 3 cases, an interposition graft (colon, jejunum) was used as conduit instead of stomach. As regards freedom from late anastomotic stricture, although not statistically significant, a trend toward a lower freedom from anastomotic stricture was observed in PFS group. The survival analysis, limited to patients with esophageal cancer, indicated higher survival rates in the PFS group (p = 0.06).
conclusionsPFS does not impact the approach or outcomes of esophagectomy and is safe with no increased risk of complications. Patients with PFS who had indication of esophagectomy for cancer tended to have better survival rates due to earlier detection and lower clinical stages at diagnosis because of more frequent follow-ups.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40328976What 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.