ArticleJTCVS open2025
Contemporary management of esophageal perforations: A resource-intensive problem.
Article in JTCVS open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- One step backward, two steps forward: esophageal diversion and the staged reconstruction of esophageal catastrophe.Journal of thoracic disease · 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
Objective: The study objective was to describe the outcomes of the modern management of esophageal perforations in a tertiary-quaternary referral center. Methods: Retrospective single institution analysis of patients with esophageal perforation from 2017 to 2023. Patient characteristics, mechanism, time to presentation, pretransfer and in-hospital interventions, mortality, and hospital course were analyzed. Perforations were classified by location from incisors. One-year survival and 30- and 90-day mortality rates were calculated. Results: Seventy-three patients were identified. Sixty-six patients (90%) had delayed (>24 hours) presentation; 62 patients (85%) were transferred from an outside hospital. The median time from injury to transfer or surgical consult was 4 days (interquartile range, 1-11). Pretransfer temporizing measures included antibiotics only (60%, 37/62), thoracostomy tube (15%, 9/62), endoscopic stenting (11%, 7/62), attempted primary repair (3%, 2/62), and thoracoscopic chest washout (11%, 5/62). Definitive treatment was as follows: 49% (36/73) esophageal stenting, 23% (17/73) primary repair, 16% (12/73) washout with feeding tube placement, and 11% (8/73) esophagectomy with diversion. The 30- and 90-day mortality rates were 4% (3/73) and 10% (7/73), respectively. There was no difference in 30-day mortality or length of stay between patients undergoing invasive interventions before transfer versus treatment with antibiotics alone ( Conclusions: Delayed esophageal perforation is a morbid condition, but high vigilance and multi-modal (surgical, endoscopic, radiologic) interventions improve survival. A conceptual modernization of the management of esophageal perforation includes more interventions and longer hospital stays.
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.