ArticleEsophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society2026
Randomized trial comparing esophageal resection versus substitution alone for corrosive esophageal strictures.
Article in Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare perioperative safety and long-term functional outcomes of esophageal resection versus substitution-alone in patients with corrosive esophageal strictures refractory to endoscopic dilatation.
methodsThis prospective, single-center, open-label, parallel-group, non-inferiority randomized controlled trial was conducted at a tertiary referral center in India. Patients aged 14-60 years with corrosive esophageal strictures unresponsive to serial dilatation were included. Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either esophageal resection or substitution-alone group. The primary outcome was incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications (PPC) within 30 days. Secondary outcomes included operative parameters, postoperative morbidity, mortality, and health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) assessed using the Gastrointestinal-Quality-of-Life-Index (GIQLI).
resultsBetween September 2012 and December 2023, 143 patients were randomized (resection, n=69; substitution-alone, n=74), and all were analyzed. PPC occurred in 11.6% of the resection group and 8.1% of the substitution-alone group (absolute risk difference, 3.5%; 95% CI -6.3% to 13.3%); the prespecified non-inferiority criterion was not met. Mediastinal dissection time was significantly longer in the resection group (48 ± 28 vs 22 ± 8 min; p < 0.001). However, total operative duration, blood loss, cervical anastomotic leak rates, recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy, and length of hospital stay were comparable between groups. One mortality (0.7%) occurred in the resection group due to a colo-colic anastomotic leak. At 12-months, mean GIQLI scores were higher following resection (118.6 ± 11.2 vs. 111.2 ± 12.8; p=0.08).
conclusionsEsophageal resection and substitution-alone were associated with comparable perioperative outcomes in patients with corrosive esophageal strictures. Although formal non-inferiority of esophageal resection was not established, no significant difference in PPC was observed. The higher HRQOL scores following resection should be considered exploratory.
trial registrationClinical Trials Registry of India (CTRI/2015/10/006237).
Indexed as
Identifiers
42763383What 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.