SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2013
Minimally invasive oesophagectomy versus open surgery: is there an advantage?
Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 4 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Systematic Mapping Review of Core Outcome Reporting in Surgical Research for Oesophageal Cancer.Journal of surgical oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Minimally invasive oesophagectomy versus open esophagectomy for resectable esophageal cancer: a meta-analysis.World journal of surgical oncology · 2016Pooled it
- The epidemiology, diagnosis, and treatment of Barrett's carcinoma.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2015Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Trial
- Is there a relationship between two different anesthetic methods and postoperative length of stay during radical resection of malignant esophageal tumors in China?: a retrospective cohort study.BMC anesthesiology · 2022Article
- Margin Positivity in Resectable Esophageal Cancer: Are there Modifiable Risk Factors?Annals of surgical oncology · 2020Article
- An Augmented Reality Endoscope System for Ureter Position Detection.Journal of medical systems · 2018Article
- Esophageal surgery in minimally invasive era.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2016Review
- [Evidence base for minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2014Review
- Role of endoscopic stents and selective minimal access drainage in oesophageal leaks: feasibility and outcome.Surgical endoscopy · 2014Article
- The contemporary role of minimally invasive esophagectomy in esophageal cancer.Current oncology reports · 2014Review
- Laparoscopic approach to gastrointestinal malignancies: toward the future with caution.World journal of gastroenterology · 2014Review
- Commentary on "Uttley L, Campbell F, Rhodes M et al. Minimally invasive esophagectomy versus open surgery: is there an advantage? Surg Endosc 2013;27(3):724-731".Surgical endoscopy · 2013Article
- Impact of comorbidity on outcomes and overall survival after open and minimally invasive esophagectomy for locally advanced esophageal cancer.Surgical endoscopy · 2013Article
- Minimally invasive esophagectomy versus open surgery: is there an advantage?Surgical endoscopy · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOesophageal resection is the main method of curative treatment for cancer of the oesophagus. Despite advances in surgical technology and postoperative care, the survival rate and prognosis of people undergoing oesophagectomy is still poor. The use of minimally invasive techniques in oesophageal surgery offers hope of reduced recovery time due to a reduction in surgical trauma. Although the first reports of thoracoscopy- and laparoscopy-assisted oesophagectomy emerged some 20 years ago, there is still no consensus that the outcomes are clearly superior to outcomes following conventional open surgery. Increasingly, some surgeons promote the use of minimally invasive techniques for oesophagectomy but questions remain over its safety and efficacy compared with open surgery.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review of the literature to compare minimally invasive techniques for oesophagectomy to open surgery. The outcomes of interest for efficacy and safety included mortality, operative complications, recurrence, and quality of life.
resultsThere were 28 included comparative studies. No randomised controlled studies (RCTs) were available and therefore the data need to be interpreted with caution.
conclusionRecommendations for future research are discussed. We argue that it is difficult to conduct an RCT for this procedure due to ethical considerations and suggest ways that future nonrandomised studies could be improved.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.