Observational studyMedicine2025
A retrospective comparative study on the short-term and long-term efficacy of different treatments for anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy.
Observational study in Medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study aims to evaluate the short-term and long-term efficacy of various treatment modalities for anastomotic leakage following esophagectomy. We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients diagnosed with anastomotic leakage after esophageal surgery from January 2020 to December 2023 at our institution. A total of 385 patients underwent esophagectomy, with 30 patients with anastomotic leakage enrolled. Patients were stratified into 2 groups based on the treatment approach: a control group receiving conservative management (n = 15), and an observation group (n = 15), which underwent endoscopic or surgical interventions. We collected comprehensive patient data, compared clinical outcomes including our institutional clinical efficacy score, evaluated fistula closure rates, and documented the incidence of postoperative complications. The Dysphagia Handicap Index questionnaire was utilized to assess the impact of dysphagia on patients' quality of life. No significant differences were observed in the baseline surgical and demographic characteristics of the 2 groups (P > .05). At 3 and 6 months post-treatment, the clinical treatment effect scores for the observation group (5.67 ± 0.72 and 8.33 ± 1.63) were significantly higher than those of the control group (4.73 ± 0.88 and 6.27 ± 1.03) (P < .001). Additionally, the effective fistula closure rate was markedly greater in the observation group (73.33%) compared to the control group (53.33%) (P < .05). There was no significant difference in the incidence of complications between the 2 groups (P > .05). Furthermore, the Dysphagia Handicap Index scores, functional, emotional, and physical, were significantly lower in the observation group than in the control group (P < .001). Subgroup analysis showed effective closure rates of 75.0% for stenting, 80.0% for endoscopic vacuum-assisted closure, and 50.0% for reoperation. Endoscopic or surgical interventions demonstrate a significant improvement in fistula closure rates and treatment efficacy in the short term compared to traditional conservative management. Long-term follow-up indicates that these interventions enhance swallowing function and markedly improve quality of life, alleviating emotional and physiological burdens. Importantly, although these approaches are invasive, the complication rates did not increase, underscoring their safety in this cohort.
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.