Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

Endoscopic vacuum-assisted closure achieves 99.81% success rate in pediatric esophageal leaks and perforationsVacuum therapy closes most esophageal leaks in children

AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work

Key Takeaway
Note that EVAC shows high success rates in pediatric esophageal leaks but requires more prospective data to confirm safety.

This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy of endoscopic vacuum-assisted closure (EVAC) and related vacuum-based techniques for pediatric patients with esophageal leaks or perforations. The analysis included 52 patients across various observational studies to assess success rates, complications, and treatment requirements.

In an aggregate-level analysis, successful leak closure was reported in 48 of 52 patients (99.81%; 95% CI, 92.11-100.00). In a specific individual patient data (IPD) cohort, success was noted in 33 of 35 patients (94.3%; 95% CI, 81.4-98.4). Regarding complications, the IPD cohort reported clinically relevant complications in 16 of 35 patients, with stricture identified as the most frequent complication. Additionally, rescue surgery was required for 6 of 35 patients in the IPD cohort.

The authors note that evidence is limited by the small size and observational nature of the included studies. There is a lack of standardized prospective data to confirm these findings. While EVAC appears promising for selected children with accessible leaks or perforations, the results indicate an association rather than direct causation. Clinical application should be approached with caution until more robust prospective data are available.

A new review of existing studies suggests that endoscopic vacuum-assisted closure (EVAC) and similar vacuum-based techniques may help close esophageal leaks and perforations in children. The analysis included 52 pediatric patients from small observational studies. In the most detailed group of 35 patients, 33 (94.3%) achieved successful closure. In the broader group of 52 patients, 48 (92.3%) had successful closure, with no variation between studies.

However, the procedure is not without risk. Among the 35 patients with detailed data, 16 experienced clinically relevant complications, with stricture being the most common. Additionally, 6 of those 35 patients required rescue surgery. The review did not report on serious adverse events or long-term outcomes.

The main limitation is that the evidence comes from small, observational studies, not randomized trials. This means the results show an association, not proof, that vacuum therapy works. The authors emphasize that standardized prospective data are needed before definitive recommendations can be made.

For parents and caregivers, this review offers hope that vacuum therapy is a promising option for carefully selected children with accessible leaks or perforations. However, it is not yet clear which children benefit most or how this compares to other treatments. Anyone considering this approach should discuss it thoroughly with their child's medical team.

What this means for you:
Vacuum therapy may help close esophageal leaks in children, but more research is needed to confirm safety and effectiveness.

Common questions

What is endoscopic vacuum-assisted closure (EVAC)?

EVAC is a technique that uses a vacuum device placed inside the esophagus to help close leaks or perforations. It works by applying suction to the wound, which can help it heal. This review looked at EVAC and similar vacuum-based methods in children with esophageal leaks.

Study Details

Study typeMeta analysis
Sample sizen = 52
EvidenceLevel 1
PublishedAug 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
BACKGROUND: Esophageal leaks and perforations in children are uncommon, but potentially life-threatening conditions associated with substantial morbidity. Endoscopic vacuum-assisted closure (EVAC) and related vacuum-based techniques have emerged as minimally invasive alternatives to conventional management, but pediatric evidence remains limited to small observational studies. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of vacuum-based therapy for pediatric esophageal leaks and perforations. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to May 21, 2026. The primary outcome was a successful leak closure. Secondary outcomes included treatment escalation, clinically relevant complications, treatment duration, number of device revisions, and functional outcomes. IPD was synthesized using one-stage models accounting for clustering by study, with complementary aggregate-level analyses when compatible data were available. RESULTS: Eight observational studies, comprising 52 patients overall. Seven studies provided IPD for 35 patients, while one study contributed aggregate-level data only. In the IPD cohort, successful closure was achieved in 33 of 35 patients, corresponding to a crude proportion of 94.3% (95% CI, 81.4-98.4). Clinically relevant complications occurred in 16 of 35 patients, with stricture being the most frequent complication. Rescue surgery was required in 6 of 35 patients. In complementary aggregate-level analysis, successful closure was achieved in 48 of 52 patients, with a pooled proportion of 99.81% (95% CI, 92.11-100.00; I² = 0%). No evaluated predictor was significantly associated with successful closure or clinically relevant complications. CONCLUSION: Vacuum-based therapy for pediatric esophageal leaks and perforations was associated with high rates of defect closure in the available literature. Further operations were required in a minority of patients and generally addressed late complications, such as stricture, after leak closure. EVAC and related techniques appear promising for carefully selected children with accessible leaks or perforations, but standardized prospective data are needed before definitive practice recommendations can be made.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.