Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17245176›Full record

ArticleAnnals of surgery2007

Comparison of the outcomes between open and minimally invasive esophagectomy.

Bernard M Smithers, David C Gotley, Ian Martin, Janine M Thomas

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of surgery, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 147 papers, 13 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
147citing papers in PubMed, 13 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

147 citing papers in PubMed, 13 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Does thoracoscopic esophagectomy really reduce post-operative pneumonia in all cases?Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Totally minimally invasive esophagectomy versus hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis.Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus · 2020
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Does minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) provide for comparable oncologic outcomes to open techniques? A systematic review.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2012
    Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Article

87 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Bernard M SmithersUpper Gastrointestinal and Soft Tissue Unit, University of Queensland, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Woolloongabba, Queensland, Australia. M.Smithers@mailbox.uq.edu.au
David C Gotley
Ian Martin
Janine M Thomas

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveWe report patient outcomes from esophageal resection with respect to morbidity and cancer survival comparing open thoracotomy and laparotomy (Open), with a thoracoscopic/laparotomy approach (Thoracoscopic-Assisted) and a total thoracoscopic/laparoscopic approach (Total MIE).

methodsFrom a prospective database of all patients managed with cancer of the esophagus or esophagogastric junction, patients who had a resection using one of three techniques were analyzed to assess postoperative variables, adequacy of cancer clearance, and survival.

resultsThe number of patients for each procedure was as follows: Open, 114; Thoracoscopic-Assisted, 309; and Total MIE, 23. The groups were comparable with respect to preoperative variables. The differences in the postoperative variables were: less median blood loss in the Thoracoscopic-Assisted (400 mL) and Total MIE (300 mL) groups versus Open (600 mL); longer time for Total MIE (330 minutes) versus Thoracoscopic-Assisted (285 minutes) and Open (300 minutes); longer median time in hospital for Open (14 days) versus Thoracoscopic-Assisted (13 days), Total MIE (11 days) and less stricture formation in the Open (6.1%) versus Thoracoscopic-Assisted (21.6%), Total MIE (36%). There were no differences in lymph node retrieval for each of the approaches. Open had more stage III patients (65.8%) versus Thoracoscopic-Assisted (34.4%), Total MIE (52.1%). There was no difference in survival when the groups were compared stage for stage for overall median or 3-year survival.

conclusionMinimally invasive techniques to resect the esophagus in patients with cancer were confirmed to be safe and comparable to an open approach with respect to postoperative recovery and cancer survival.

Indexed as

LaparotomyThoracoscopyAdenocarcinomaAdultAgedAged, 80 and overEsophageal NeoplasmsEsophagectomyFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrevalenceProspective StudiesSurvival Rate

Identifiers

PMID17245176
PMCPMC1876975

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.