ArticleSurgical endoscopy2013
Impact of comorbidity on outcomes and overall survival after open and minimally invasive esophagectomy for locally advanced esophageal cancer.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 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
30 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 66 citations in OpenAlex.
- Perineural Invasion Is a Significant Indicator of High Malignant Degree and Poor Prognosis in Esophageal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Pooled it
- Does thoracoscopic esophagectomy really reduce post-operative pneumonia in all cases?Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society · 2021Pooled 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
- Combined thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy versus open esophagectomy: a meta-analysis of outcomes.Surgical endoscopy · 2016Pooled it
- Laparoscopic versus open transhiatal oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016Pooled it
- Prognostic value of abdominal aortic calcification in patients with esophageal cancer undergoing neoadjuvant therapy and esophagectomy.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- Evolution of a minimally invasive oesophagectomy program - effective complication management is key.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2023Article
- Experiences in reverse sequence esophagectomy: a promising alternative for esophageal cancer surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Determinants of survival outcomes among esophageal cancer patients at a national referral hospital in Kenya.Chronic diseases and translational medicine · 2023Article
- Risk stratification of cirrhotic patients undergoing esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: A single-centre experience.PloS one · 2022Article
- The Impact of Hybrid Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy with Neck-Abdominal First Approach on the Short- and Long-Term Outcomes for Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma.World journal of surgery · 2020Article
- Predictive Value of the Age-Adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index for Outcomes After Hepatic Resection of Hepatocellular Carcinoma.World journal of surgery · 2020Article
- Postoperative complications of minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2020Review
- Thoracoscopy in prone position with two-lung ventilation compared to conventional thoracotomy during Ivor Lewis procedure: a multicenter case-control study.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Article
- Impact of the Charlson Comorbidity Index on the treatment strategy and survival in elderly patients after non-curative endoscopic submucosal dissection for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a multicenter retrospective study.Journal of gastroenterology · 2019Article
- Propensity-Matched Analysis Comparing Survival After Hybrid Thoracoscopic-Laparotomy Esophagectomy and Complete Thoracoscopic-Laparoscopic Esophagectomy.World journal of surgery · 2019Article
- Robot assisted esophagectomy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.Journal of thoracic disease · 2018Article
- Impact of surgical approach on perioperative and long-term outcomes following esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.Surgical endoscopy · 2018Article
- Perioperative management and outcomes of minimally invasive esophagectomy: case study of a high-volume tertiary center in Taiwan.Journal of thoracic disease · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to examine the impact of the Charlson Comorbidity Index-Grade (CCI-G) on predicting outcomes and overall survival after open and minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE).
methodsOne hundred and forty-six patients who underwent esophagectomy between 1995 and 2011 for stage II and III cancer were selected and separated into open esophagectomy (Open) and MIE groups. Risk adjustment was performed using the CCI-G. The outcomes of interest were operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), lymph node harvest, length of hospital stay (LOS), major complications, 30-day mortality, and overall survival.
resultsSixty-four patients (44 %) underwent Open while 71 (49 %) had MIE. An additional (7 %) were converted and classified with MIE. There was no significant difference between MIE and Open in terms of operative time. MIE had less EBL (mean difference = 234 mL, p < 0.001), higher lymph node harvest (mean = 7.4 nodes, p < 0.001), and shorter LOS (median = 1.5 days, p = 0.02). Atrial arrhythmias were the most frequent complication, occurring in 33 % of patients in both the MIE and the Open group (p = 0.988). Thirty-day mortality was 2 % for MIE and 5 % for Open (p = 0.459). Five-year survival was 41 % for MIE and 33 % for Open (p = 0.513). Operative approach, age, gender, BMI, clinical stage, and neoadjuvant therapy did not have any significant effect on the outcomes or overall survival. CCI-G influenced outcomes with operative time, LOS, cardiovascular complication, and anastomotic leak rate, favoring CCI-G 0 compared to CCI-G 3. Overall survival was worse for CCI-G 1 in comparison with CCI-G 0 [hazard ratio (HR) 1.99, p = 0.027].
conclusionsMIE is a safe alternative to open esophagectomy for the treatment of locally advanced esophageal cancer. The presence of comorbidities increased operative time, length of hospital stay, and postoperative complications while worsening overall survival.
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.