ArticleSurgical endoscopy2015
A comparative study of survival after minimally invasive and open oesophagectomy.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 5 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
34 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 69 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Meta-analysis of the influence of a positive circumferential resection margin in oesophageal cancer.BJS open · 2019Pooled it
- Laparoscopic versus open transhiatal oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Quality and safety of Ireland's first robotic oesophagectomy program.Irish journal of medical science · 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
- Article
- Outcomes of Minimally Invasive and Robot-Assisted Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer.Cancers · 2022Review
- Robotic-assisted surgery for esophageal submucosal tumors: a single-center case series.Updates in surgery · 2022Article
- Safety comparison of minimally invasive abdomen-only esophagectomy versus minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy: a retrospective cohort study.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Advantages of McKeown minimally invasive oesophagectomy for the treatment of oesophageal cancer: propensity score matching analysis of 169 cases.World journal of surgical oncology · 2022Article
- Operative Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy versus Open Esophagectomy for Resectable Esophageal Cancer.South Asian journal of cancer · 2021Article
- [Evidence in minimally invasive oncological surgery of the esophagus].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2021Review
- 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
- Minimally Invasive Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy (MILE): technique and outcomes of 100 consecutive cases.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Article
- Pushing the envelope of minimally invasive esophagectomy.Journal of thoracic disease · 2019Article
- Intraoperative conversion does not affect the oncological outcomes of minimally invasive esophagectomy for treatment of esophageal cancer.Surgical endoscopy · 2018Article
- An Augmented Reality Endoscope System for Ureter Position Detection.Journal of medical systems · 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
9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOesophageal cancer is increasing in incidence worldwide. Minimally invasive techniques have been used to perform oesophagectomy, but concerns regarding these techniques remain. Since its description by Cuschieri in 1992, the use of minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) has increased, but still only used in a minority of resections in the UK in 2009. In particular, there has been reluctance to use minimally invasive (thoracoscopic and laparoscopic) techniques in more advanced cancers for fears regarding the adequacy of the oncological resection. In order to identify any factors that could affect survival, we undertook a retrospective analysis on all patients who underwent surgery in our department over an 8-year period.
methodsA retrospective data analysis was undertaken on all patients who underwent oesophagectomy in a tertiary upper gastrointestinal surgery unit, from 2005 to 2012 inclusive. Data were collected from the departmental database and case note review, with follow-up and survival data to time of data collection. The survival data were analysed using univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression models to determine which variables affected survival. Variables examined included age, tumour position, tumour stage (T0, 1, 2 vs T3, 4), nodal stage (N0 vs N1), tumour histology, completeness of resection (R0 vs R1), use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and operative technique (thoracoscopic/laparoscopic (MIO) vs laparoscopic abdomen/open chest (Lap assisted) vs Open.
results334 patients underwent oesophagectomy between 2005 and 2012. Male to female ratio was 3.75:1, with a mean age of 64 years (range 36-87). There were 83 open oesophagectomies, 187 laparoscopically assisted oesophagectomies and 64 minimally invasive oesophagectomies. Following univariate regression analysis the following factors were found to be correlated to survival: use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (Hazard Ratio 2.889, 95 % CI 1.737-4.806), T stage 3 or 4 (3.749, 2.475-5.72), Node positive (5.225, 3.561-7.665), R1 resection (2.182, 1.425-3.341), type of operation (MIO compared to open oesophagectomy) (0.293, 0.158-0.541). There was no significant relationship between age, tumour position or tumour histology and length of survival. When these factors were entered into a multivariate model, the independently significant factors correlated to survival were found to be T stage 3 or 4 (HR 1.969, 1.248-3.105), Node positive (3.833, 2.548-5.766) and type of operation (MIO compared to open) (0.5186, 0.277-0.972).
conclusionMultiple small studies have found reduced pulmonary complication rates and duration of hospital stay when using a minimally invasive approach compared to open. Concerns in the literature over long-term outcomes, however, have led to limited utilisation of this method, especially in advanced disease. The data from this large study show significantly better survival following operations performed using minimally invasive techniques compared to open, however, we have not adjusted for some known or unknown confounding factors. International and national RCTs, however, will provide more information in due course.
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.