ArticleUpdates in surgery2025
First impressions, second chances in esophageal perforations: treatment pathways and outcome prediction.
Article in Updates in surgery, 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
Benign esophageal perforations present a significant clinical challenge due to their high morbidity and potential for fatal outcomes. The complex nature of these perforations demands prompt diagnosis and effective management to mitigate the associated risks. This study aims to evaluate the clinical outcomes of various management strategies for esophageal perforations, focusing on the effectiveness of organ-preserving approaches. We retrospectively analyzed patients diagnosed with benign esophageal perforation between January 2011 and December 2021. Patients were stratified into two groups: those who underwent resection and those who did not. Subgroup analysis was performed on patients managed initially without resection to assess the success of organ-preserving strategies (successful organ preservation, SOP) vs. either salvage resection or death (unsuccessful organ preservation, UOP). Forty-two patients were included: 22 underwent esophageal resection, while 20 were managed non-operatively. The overall 90-day mortality rate was 26%, with higher mortality observed in the resection group. In patients managed initially without resection, 62.1% had successful outcomes, while 37.9% required salvage esophagectomy or died within 90 days. The Pittsburgh Severity Score (PSS) did not significantly predict the need for resection. Distal perforations underwent resection more frequently (p < .001). Overall 90-day mortality was high both among patients who underwent initial resection (5/13, 38.5%) and salvage esophagectomy (3/8, 37.5%). Twenty-nine patients did not initially undergo resection, of which n = 18 (62.1%) were categorized as SOP and n = 11 (37.9%) as UOP. Among the latter, n = 3 (10.3%) died within 90 days and n = 8 (27.6%) underwent salvage esophagectomy. On subgroup analysis on initially unresected patients, delayed diagnosis ≥ 24 h was higher among UOP than SOP patients (n = 5, 45.5% vs. n = 2, 11.1%, p = 0.49). Our findings underscore the importance of early diagnosis and the feasibility of a step-up approach in a select group of patients presenting with favorable variables.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40569524What 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.