SynthesisIrish journal of medical science2025
Different types of oesophageal reconstructions in the contemporary era: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Irish journal of medical science, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionOesophageal reconstruction is a complex operation that continues to present a surgical challenge associated with significant morbidity and its associated sequelae. The conventional gastric conduit remains the gold standard reconstructive technique when available. Alternative conduits for oesophageal replacement become necessary when the stomach is unavailable with common options for conduit creation being the jejunum and the colon. The aim of this systematic review and network meta-analysis was to interrogate outcomes in oesophageal reconstruction with gastric pull-up, colonic interposition and jejunal flap.
methodsA systematic review of three electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE and SCOPUS) was undertaken. An NMA as per the PRISMA-NMA guidelines. Statistical analysis was carried out using R and Shiny.
resultsIn a total of 19 studies, 3927 patients were included; 79.5% (3123/3927) of patients underwent gastric pull-up; 13.5% (531/3927) of patients underwent colonic interposition; 7% (273/3927) of patients underwent jejunal flap as their reconstructive method. At NMA, there was no significant difference in anastomotic leak rates, mortality rates, stricture formation, necrosis and length of stay between the three reconstructive techniques. Trend results showed jejunal flap performed better than colonic interposition in length of stay and mortality rates.
conclusionAt present, the gastric conduit is the conventional and first choice for oesophageal reconstruction ab initio after oesophagostomy. Colonic interposition and jejunal free flap represent viable options and are associated with non-inferior short-term surgical outcomes when gastric pull-up is not available or feasible.
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.