Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20464423›Full record

Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2010

Open versus minimally invasive esophagectomy: a single-center case controlled study.

Sebastian F Schoppmann, Gerhard Prager, Felix B Langer, Franz M Riegler, Barbara Kabon, Edith Fleischmann, Johannes Zacherl

Registry-linked trialAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03035071 (Morbidity In Open Versus Minimally Invasive Hybrid Esophagectomy), which is not on this map. Cited by 51 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed, 11 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.

NCT03035071 nacompletednot on this map

Morbidity In Open Versus Minimally Invasive Hybrid Esophagectomy

TypeinterventionalSponsorAustrian Society Of Surgical OncologyRan2010 to 2016Enrolled26ConditionsEsophageal CancerArmsminimally invasive esophagectomy, open esophagectomy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

51 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Does thoracoscopic esophagectomy really reduce post-operative pneumonia in all cases?Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Laparoscopic versus open transhiatal oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. 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
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Sebastian F SchoppmannDepartment of Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria. sebastian.schoppmann@meduniwien.ac.at
Gerhard Prager
Felix B Langer
Franz M Riegler
Barbara Kabon
Edith Fleischmann
Johannes Zacherl

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecent advances in laparoscopic and thoracoscopic surgery have made it possible to perform esophagectomy using minimally invasive techniques. Although technically complex, recent case studies showed that minimally invasive approaches to esophagectomy are feasible and have the potential to improve mortality, hospital stay, and functional outcome.

methodsWe have performed a case controlled pair-matched study comparing 62 patients who had undergone either minimally invasive (MIE) or open esophagectomy (OE) between 2004 and 2007. Patients were matched by tumor stage and localization, sex, age, and preoperative ASA score. Pathologic stage, operative time, blood loss, transfusion requirements, hospital length of stay, postoperative morbidity, and mortality were recorded.

resultsStatistically significant differences were seen in the overall number of patients with surgical morbidity (MIE: 25% vs. OE: 74%, p = 0.014), the transfusion rate (MIE: 12.9% vs. OE: 41.9%, p = 0.001), and the rate of postoperative respiratory complications (MIE: 9.7% vs. OE: 38.7%, p = 0.008). There was no difference with respect to the duration of surgery. The number of resected lymph nodes and rate of pathologic complete resection were comparable. ICU stay [MIE: 3 days (range = 0-15) vs. OE: 6 days (range = 1-40), p = 0.03] and hospital stay [MIE: 12 days (range = 8-46) vs. OE: 24 days (range = 10-79), p = 0.001] were significantly shorter in the MIE group.

conclusionThe results of this case-controlled study provide further evidence for the feasibility and possible improvements in the postoperative morbidity of minimally invasive esophagectomy. Our data are comparable to those from other centers and lead us to initiate the first prospectively randomized study comparing the morbidity of total minimally invasive esophagectomy with the open technique.

Indexed as

EsophagoscopyAdultAgedCase-Control StudiesEsophageal NeoplasmsEsophagectomyFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective Studies

Identifiers

PMID20464423

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.