ArticleSurgical endoscopy2025
Esophageal magnetic compression anastomosis for esophageal atresia repair: when not to use magnets-our experience.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Clinical Challenges in the Diagnosis and Management of Fetal Esophageal Atresia: From Prenatal Diagnosis and Surgical Intervention to Prognostic Management].Sichuan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Sichuan University. Medical science edition · 2026Review
- Pediatric extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support at a single center: Outcomes by indication, prognostic factors, and duration.Annals of pediatric cardiologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEsophageal magnetic compression anastomosis (EMCA) represents an innovative minimally invasive approach for establishing esophageal continuity for patients with esophageal atresia, especially when comorbidities increase the risk of a thoracoscopic or open operation. Over the last 5 years, we have demonstrated favorable outcomes in our patients, but have also encountered cases in which EMCA was not successful. This report is an in-depth analysis of the failed EMCA attempts.
methodsA retrospective chart review of all patients who were scheduled for EMCA was performed. All patients who failed magnet placement and underwent conventional repair instead were identified and presented as case series. Patient characteristics, intra- and postoperative data, reasons for failure, and follow-up data were analyzed.
resultsFrom 2021 through 2024, EMCA was attempted in a total of 15 patients by our team on an intention-to-treat basis under compassionate care ethics. Placement of the magnets failed in 3 patients (20%). Every case showed specific characteristics that prohibited magnet coupling. In case 1, metal clips that had been placed during a prior lengthening procedure precluded mating of the magnets. In case 2, an atretic lower pouch was present and therefore the magnet could not be advanced toward the proximal end of the distal pouch. In the third case, an atypical bronchus was interposed between the two esophageal pouches, resulting in distance and tissue between the upper and lower pouch.
conclusionEMCA is a minimally invasive approach for endoscopic esophageal anastomosis creation in complex cases of esophageal atresia, or patients with comorbidities that confer a very high surgical risk. Careful patient selection and preparation is crucial to maximize the chance of success. Based on our current experience and case series, we propose certain anatomic variants and pre-existing factors as contraindications for EMCA.
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.