Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26659248›Full record

SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2016

Combined thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy versus open esophagectomy: a meta-analysis of outcomes.

Wei Guo, Xiao Ma, Su Yang, Xiaoli Zhu, Wei Qin, Jiaqing Xiang, Toni Lerut, Hecheng Li

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 85 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
85citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
10.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

85 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 153 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Does thoracoscopic esophagectomy really reduce post-operative pneumonia in all cases?Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society · 2021
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Guideline
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

25 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Wei GuoDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center (FUSCC), Shanghai, 200032, China.
Xiao MaDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center (FUSCC), Shanghai, 200032, China.
Su YangDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, 200025, China.
Xiaoli ZhuDepartment of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, China.
Wei QinSchool of Statistic, Renmin University of China, Beijing, 100086, China.
Jiaqing XiangDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center (FUSCC), Shanghai, 200032, China.
Toni LerutDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, University Hospital Gasthuisberg, Herestraat 49, 3000, Louvain, Belgium.
Hecheng LiDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, 200025, China. lihecheng2000@hotmail.com.
Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center · CNRuijin Hospital · CNRenmin University of China · CNShanghai Medical College of Fudan University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesAt present there is controversy regarding the optimal surgical method for esophageal cancer. Specifically, whether combined thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy is superior to open esophagectomy with respect to the surgical wound, perioperative morbidities and mortality, and the overall survival rate is of great concern. This article aimed to compare thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy versus open esophagectomy on the perioperative morbidities and long-term survival.

methodsPubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar databases were searched for relevant studies comparing combined thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy with open esophagectomy using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic Reviews and Meta-Analyses standards. Odds ratios were extracted to give pooled estimates of the perioperative effect of the two surgical procedures. Hazard ratios were extracted to compare overall survival between the two surgical procedures.

resultsThirteen studies involving 1549 patients were included in this meta-analysis. We found that patients that underwent combined thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy had lower total complication rates (relative risk 1.20; 95 % CI 1.08-1.34; p = 0.0009), wound infection rates, pulmonary complications, and less intraoperative blood loss. Moreover, our study also showed combined thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy did not compromise the 5-year survival rate (hazard risk 0.920; 95 % CI 0.720-1.176; p = 0.505) and even improved 2-year survival rate. The 30-day mortality and other common morbidities, including anastomotic leakage, anastomotic stricture, pulmonary infection, chylothorax, arrhythmia, or recurrent laryngeal nerve injury, were not significantly different between combined thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy and traditional open esophagectomy (p > 0.05).

conclusionsCombined thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy is a feasible and reliable surgical procedure that can achieve uncompromising long-term survival rates and reduce perioperative complications.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyEsophageal NeoplasmsEsophagectomyHumansPostoperative ComplicationsSurvival AnalysisThoracoscopyEsophageal cancerEsophagectomyLaparoscopyMeta-analysisMinimally invasive surgeryVideo-assisted thoracoscopic surgery

Identifiers

PMID26659248
OpenAlexW2195126139

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.