Trial reportPediatric surgery international2025
The application of stay sutures in thoracoscopic esophageal repair for Type C esophageal atresia.
Trial report in Pediatric surgery international, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the clinical application of stay sutures in thoracoscopic repair for esophageal atresia (EA) combined with tracheoesophageal fistula (TEF).
methodsA total of 56 neonates diagnosed with Type C EA received thoracoscopic correction surgery from May 2019 to December 2024. The patients were divided into 2 groups randomly: (1) Esophageal anastomosis was constructed using interrupted sutures on the posterior wall and continuous locked stitches on the anterior wall assisted by two stay sutures (Group A; n = 30) and (2) Esophageal anastomosis was performed using traditional techniques with interrupted sutures on both anterior and posterior walls (Group B; n = 26). A comprehensive comparison of operative parameters and postoperative complications was systematically conducted between the two surgical methods.
resultsThe mean anastomotic time was significantly shorter in Group A (20.5 ± 3.3 min) compared with Group B (41.0 ± 4.5 min, P < 0.05). Similarly, operation time was 126.5 ± 15.5 min in Group A versus 154.5 ± 13.5 min in Group B (P < 0.05). Postoperative ventilator support duration was 2.1 ± 0.7 days in Group A versus 2.3 ± 0.6 days in Group B (P > 0.05). The time to first oral intake was 8.5 ± 1.8 days in Group A versus 9.3 ± 3.2 days in Group B (P > 0.05). An upper gastrointestinal series performed on postoperative day 5-7 revealed anastomotic leakage in 4 of 30 patients (13.3%) in Group A versus 6 of 26 patients (23.1%) in Group B (P > 0.05). Anastomotic stenosis was observed in 6 patients (20%) in Group A and 6 patients (23.1%) in Group B postoperatively, also with no statistically significant difference between the groups (P > 0.05). No recurrence of TEF was observed in each group.
conclusionThis innovative approach significantly shortens the operative time in the thoracoscopic treatment of Type C EA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40676256What 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.