SynthesisDigestive diseases and sciences2010
Minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy: meta-analysis of outcomes.
Synthesis in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 71 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
71 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Minimally invasive techniques for transthoracic oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer: systematic review and network meta-analysis.BJS open · 2020Pooled it
- Postoperative short-term outcomes of minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy for patients with esophageal cancer: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis.Thoracic cancer · 2020Pooled it
- Minimally invasive oesophagectomy versus open esophagectomy for resectable esophageal cancer: a meta-analysis.World journal of surgical oncology · 2016Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Minimally invasive oesophagectomy versus open surgery: is there an advantage?Surgical endoscopy · 2013Pooled it
- 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 · 2012Pooled it
- Minimally invasive esophagectomy: results of a prospective phase II multicenter trial-the eastern cooperative oncology group (E2202) study.Annals of surgery · 2015Trial
- Trial
- Transfusion Risk in Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic-Assisted Surgery: A Propensity Score Matched Case-Control Study across Surgical Disciplines.Transfusion medicine and hemotherapy : offizielles Organ der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Transfusionsmedizin und Immunhamatologie · 2025Article
- Structured surgical training in minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) increases textbook outcome-a risk-adjusted learning curve.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- APACHE II, SOFA, and SAPS III after transhiatal and thoracoscopic in prone position esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a single-center retrospective cohort analysis.Arquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgery · 2025Article
- Esophagectomy in octogenarians: is it at a cost?Heliyon · 2022Article
- Improving Oncologic Outcomes for Esophageal Cancer After Open and Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy.Annals of surgical oncology · 2022Article
- Network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on esophagectomies in esophageal cancer: The superiority of minimally invasive surgery.World journal of gastroenterology · 2022Article
- Minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy in 10 steps.JTCVS techniques · 2021Article
- Outcomes of robotic esophagectomy.Journal of thoracic disease · 2021Review
- Ureteral injuries in colorectal surgery and the impact of laparoscopic and robotic-assisted approaches.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Article
- Brazilian Group of Gastrointestinal Tumours' consensus guidelines for the management of oesophageal cancer.Ecancermedicalscience · 2021Article
- Minimally invasive esophagectomy: clinical evidence and surgical techniques.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2020Review
- Minimal Invasive Esophagectomy-a New Dawn of EsophagealSurgery.Indian journal of surgical oncology · 2020Review
11 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA meta-analysis of the current literature was performed to compare the perioperative outcome measures and oncological impact between minimally invasive and open esophagectomy.
methodsUsing the electronic databases Medline, Embase, Pubmed and the Cochrane Library, we performed a meta-analysis pooling the effects of outcomes of 1,008 patients enrolled into eight comparative studies, using classic and modern meta-analytic methods.
resultsTwo comparisons were considered for this systematic review: (I) open thoracotomy vs. VATS/laparoscopy esophagectomy and (II) open thoracotomy vs. VATS esophagectomy. In comparison I: both procedures report equally comparable outcomes (removed lymph nodes, 30-day mortality, 3-year survival) with the exception of overall morbidity (P = 0.038; in favor of the MIE arm) and anastomotic stricture (P < 0.001; in favor of the open thoracotomy arm). In comparison II: No differences were noted between treatment arms concerning postoperative outcomes and survival.
conclusionsIn summary, both arms were comparable with regard to perioperative results and prognosis. Further prospective comparative or randomized-controlled trials focusing on the oncological impact of MIE are needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20186484What 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.