Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21792712›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2012

Decreasing morbidity and mortality in 100 consecutive minimally invasive esophagectomies.

Kfir Ben-David, George A Sarosi, Juan C Cendan, Drew Howard, Georgios Rossidis, Steven N Hochwald

Abstract readEvaluation StudyMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
10.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 86 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. MINIMALLY INVASIVE LAPAROSCOPIC ESOPHAGECTOMY VS. TRANSHIATAL OPEN ESOPHAGECTOMY IN ACHALASIA: A RANDOMIZED STUDY.Arquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgery · 2018
    Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Pathological assessment of endoscopic resections of the gastrointestinal tract: a comprehensive clinicopathologic review.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2020
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kfir Ben-DavidDepartment of Surgery, University of Florida College of Medicine, 1600 SW Archer Road, Room 6164, P.O. Box 100109, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA. Kfir.Bendavid@surgery.ufl.edu
George A Sarosi
Juan C Cendan
Drew Howard
Georgios Rossidis
Steven N Hochwald
University of Florida · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionEsophagectomy is a complex invasive procedure that requires exploration of multiple body cavities for removal and subsequent restoration of gastrointestinal continuity. In many institutions, esophagectomy morbidity and mortality rates remain high despite improvement of intensive care treatment. We reviewed our minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) experience of a consecutive series of 100 patients to analyze trends in morbidity and mortality as we transitioned from open to MIE.

methodsA total of 105 consecutive patients who underwent operative exploration for esophagectomy from August 2007 to January 2011 were reviewed. The preoperative evaluation, operative technique, and postoperative care of these cases were evaluated and analyzed for 100 patients who have had a MIE and compared with 32 open esophagectomies 2 years prior.

resultsDuring the time frame of the study, 105 patients underwent an exploration for attempted esophagectomy. Resection was completed in 100 patients and was done for malignant disease in 95 patients and benign disease in 5 patients. There was one in hospital mortality due to a pulmonary embolism. There was no significant difference in postoperative complications consisting of transient left recurrent nerve injury (7 vs. 12.5%) or pneumonia (9 vs. 15.6%) in those who underwent MIE compared with open resection. However, wound infections were significantly less in patients who underwent MIE compared with open esophagectomy (1 vs. 12.5%, respectively, p = 0.01). Anastomotic leak (4 vs. 12.5%, p = 0.05) also was lower in those who underwent MIE. Median length of stay (LOS) was significantly less in patients who underwent MIE compared with open esophagectomy (7.5 vs. 14 days, p < 0.05). Finally, there was a trend toward improvement in median LOS in the 30 patients who underwent MIE during the most recent time period compared with the initial 17 patients who underwent MIE (7.5 vs. 10 days, p = 0.05)

conclusionsOur results support the continued safe use of esophagectomy for selected esophageal diseases, including malignancy. Morbidity, especially wound infection, anastomotic leak, and length of stay is decreasing with the incorporation of minimally invasive techniques.

Indexed as

Blood Loss, SurgicalEsophageal DiseasesEsophageal NeoplasmsEsophagectomyFemaleFloridaHumansLaparoscopyLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedPostoperative CareProspective StudiesThoracoscopyTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID21792712
OpenAlexW2019503628

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.