Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40633608›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery2025

Outcomes of esophageal diversion and long-term prognosis: A single-institution experience.

Yota Suzuki, Sangmin Kim, Zihan Feng, Victor Crentsil, Evan T Alicuben, Tadeusz D Witek, Ryan M Levy, Arjun Pennathur, James D Luketich, Omar Awais

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Yota SuzukiDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pa. Electronic address: rsr2ys@gmail.com.
Sangmin KimDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pa.
Zihan FengDepartment of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pa.
Victor CrentsilDepartment of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Mercy, Pittsburgh, Pa.
Evan T AlicubenDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pa.
Tadeusz D WitekDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pa; Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Mercy, Pittsburgh, Pa.
Ryan M LevyDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pa.
Arjun PennathurDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pa.
James D LuketichDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pa.
Omar AwaisDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pa; Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Mercy, Pittsburgh, Pa.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveEsophageal diversion of the esophagus is a last resort but effective procedure to control esophageal crises. Existing reports on this procedure are sporadic, and the prognosis is difficult to predict.

methodsWe performed a single-institution, retrospective study of patients who underwent esophageal diversion with cervical esophagostomy from 2014 to 2023. Esophageal diversion was performed for primary and secondary esophageal pathologies, including referrals from outside facilities. Primary outcomes are survival and reconstruction rate.

resultsDuring the study period, a total of 170 patients underwent esophageal diversion with cervical esophagostomy for various pathologies: 26 conduit ischemia after esophagectomy, 42 perforations (11 malignant), 24 tracheoesophageal fistula, 30 esophagectomies with delayed reconstruction, 24 conduit revisions, and 24 other benign pathologies. Survival to discharge was 84.1%. Reconstruction was performed in 97 patients (57.1%) after a median of 6.3 months. The primary reason for nonreconstruction was poor health or death (60 patients [82.2%]), followed by malignancy progression (9 patients [12.3%]). Gastric conduit was used for substernal reconstruction in 81 patients (83.5%), whereas 15 colon interpositions and 1 Roux-en-Y jejunal reconstruction were also utilized (16.5%). Despite high leak rates, 42.0% with gastric conduits, the majority of them were managed conservatively, and the survival to discharge after reconstruction was 94.8%. Median survival after reconstruction was 69.9 months.

conclusionsEsophageal diversion ensures safe control of the crisis, even in the face of complex esophageal pathologies. Despite the high anastomotic leak rate following reconstruction, long-term survival was favorable once patients recovered from the initial episode and underwent reconstruction.

Indexed as

Esophageal DiseasesEsophagectomyEsophagostomyEsophagusAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsTime FactorsTreatment Outcomeesophageal perforationesophagectomytracheoesophageal fistula

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.