ArticlePediatric surgery international2026
Percutaneous laparoscopic-assisted gastrostomy outperforms surgical gastrostomy for temporary feeding in long-gap esophageal atresia: a comparative cohort study.
Article in Pediatric surgery international, 2026. 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to compare the clinical efficacy of percutaneous laparoscopic-assisted gastrostomy (PLAG) and surgical gastrostomy (SG) for temporary gastrostomy in neonates with long-gap esophageal atresia (LGEA).
methodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis of 41 neonates diagnosed with LGEA who underwent temporary gastrostomy. Patients were retrospectively divided into two groups based on the year of surgery: the PLAG group (intervention group, n = 23,post-2020) and the SG group (historical control group, n = 18, pre-2020).We compared perioperative parameters, including postoperative fasting duration, gastrostomy closure rates, abdominal scar scores and complication rates between the two groups.
resultsNo significant differences were found in baseline characteristics, including gender (p = 0.732), gestational age (p = 0.460), birth weight (p = 0.421), operative age (p = 0.165), Gross classification (p = 0.117), esophageal gap length (p = 0.081), or concomitant deformities (p = 0.767). The two groups showed no statistically significant differences in operative time (p = 0.067), intraoperative blood loss (p = 0.189), or postoperative fasting duration (p = 0.378). However, the PLAG group demonstrated clinically meaningful advantages in several outcomes, including significantly lower rates of gastrostomy closure (p < 0.001), improved cosmetic results (assessed by lower abdominal scar scores; p < 0.001), and reduced complication rates for stoma leakage (p < 0.001), peristomal dermatitis (p < 0.001), local infection (p < 0.001), and tube dislodgement (p = 0.003). No significant differences were noted in stomal hemorrhage (p = 0.083) or intra-abdominal fistula rates (p = 0.252).
conclusionCompared to SG, PLAG offers significant advantages for temporary gastrostomy in LGEA, including lower closure requirements, improved cosmetic outcomes, and fewer overall complications. These findings support the broader clinical adoption of PLAG in this patient population.
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.