ArticleScientific reports2025
Successes and failures of using the intestine as a pedicled oesophageal substitute of corrosive burns.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Surgical approaches to esophageal cancer gastrointestinal reconstruction: a systematic review of jejunum, colon, and ileocolonic interposition with comparative outcome analysis.World journal of surgical oncology · 2026Pooled it
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Anatomy is the primary factor in planning and performing reconstructive surgery of the oesophagus. When it becomes necessary to replace the natural, pathologically obstructed oesophagus-for example, after corrosive intake-a tube can be created using the stomach or intestine. We performed intestine-based reconstructions of injured and obliterated oesophagi in more than 300 patients. Of these, 147 (60 women, 70 men, and 17 children: 7 girls and 10 boys) treated between 1990 and 2010 were analysed in this study. The decision to use the intestine, whether large or small, as a substitute was based on its vascular supply, which was assessed intraoperatively. The reconstruction was performed using a pedicled intestinal segment, with the colon utilized in approximately 35% of cases, the jejunum in 30%, and a combination of large and small intestines in the remaining cases. In most patients who underwent surgery, recovery was uneventful; however, complications occurred in a few cases. We observed cervical diverticula in 5 patients (3.4%; 2 females, 3 males), pleural hernias in 5 patients (3.4%; 2 females, 3 males; all of these patients underwent reoperation), colic tube distension in 5 patients (3.4%; 3 females, 2 males), cervical stenosis in 2 patients (1.4%; 1 female, 1 male), and ulcerations in 2 patients (1.4%; 1 female, 1 male). Additionally, one female patient exhibited a genu-like flexion in the intestinal segment, while two patients (1 female, 1 male) developed ulcerations in the intestinal substitute. Another female patient had a large colic remnant. The best results in restoring the passage between the pharynx and stomach were achieved using jejunal segments, as they provided an identical lumen diameter for anastomosed segments. The experience of the surgical team was a key factor in achieving successful outcomes.
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.