ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2025
Esophageal stenting and endoscopic vacuum therapy for esophageal defects: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 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.
- Outcomes after esophageal perforation: A tertiary referral center series.Surgery today · 2026Article
- An Uncommon Adverse Event of Endoscopic Vacuum Therapy and Pigtail Stent Placement for the Treatment of Bariatric Surgery Leak.ACG case reports journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Spontaneous esophageal perforation, especially Boerhaave syndrome, carries high morbidity and mortality. Minimally invasive treatments like esophageal stenting and endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT) are increasingly used, but optimal management remains unclear. Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy and safety of esophageal stenting and EVT in managing esophageal defects by assessing sealing rates, failure rates, and mortality. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library through 24 March 2025. Only observational studies and case series were included. Primary outcomes were the pooled sealing rate, failure rate, and mortality for stenting, and the closure rate for EVT. Data were analyzed using a random-effects model, with heterogeneity assessed by the Results: Twenty stenting studies (245 patients) showed a pooled sealing rate of 86.1% (95% CI: 80.2-92.0%) and a failure rate of 14.9% (95% CI: 8.5-21.3%). Stent-related mortality was 7.4% (95% CI: 3.5-11.4%). Thirteen EVT studies (424 patients) demonstrated a pooled sealing rate of 54.1% (95% CI: 34.8-73.4%) with high heterogeneity ( Conclusion: Both esophageal stenting (86.1% success) and EVT (54.1% overall; 89.6% post-sensitivity) effectively close esophageal defects. However, EVT's heterogeneity and the observational design of studies limit definitive conclusions. These findings affirm stenting's role and suggest EVT's promise, yet emphasize the urgent need for randomized controlled trials to establish evidence-based guidelines.
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.