ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2026
Applicability and results of the consensus definition of delayed gastric conduit emptying after esophagectomy.
Article in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDelayed gastric conduit emptying (DGCE) affects 15%-60% of patients after esophagectomy, depending on the definition used. This study evaluated DGCE incidence using the new consensus criteria and explored its clinical and scientific relevance. It also analyzed nasogastric tube (NGT) output to estimate a safe removal threshold.
methodsThis retrospective single-center cohort study included patients who underwent elective Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (2020-2024).
resultsA total of 160 patients were included. The majority of patients underwent robot-assisted esophagectomy (n = 65 [40.6%]), whereas open esophagectomy was performed in 38 patients (23.7%). Early DGCE was identified in 40.6% of patients, predominantly via NGT output (95.4%), with few cases diagnosed radiologically (4.6%). DGCE was associated with longer hospital stays (24 vs. 18 days, p = 0.034) and higher NGT reinsertion rates (47.0% vs. 28.7%, p = 0.02), but not with differences in surgical approach or major complications (Clavien-Dindo Classification > IIIa: 18.2% vs. 13.8%, p = 0.72). Late DGCE was diagnosed in only 8 patients (5.0%), mainly because of the low use of routine radiological imaging. In the cohort of patients who did not require NGT reinsertion, the median of the average nasogastric tube output for the 2 days before removal was 200 mL per day.
conclusionsThe consensus definition of DGCE is applicable and identifies a clinically relevant incidence of over 40%. An average daily NGT output of 200 mL appears to reliably predict safe tube removal.
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.