ArticleWorld journal of gastroenterology2015
Updated experiences with minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.
Article in World journal of gastroenterology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 3 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
24 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.
- Perioperative outcomes of robotic versus conventional minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Minimally invasive techniques for transthoracic oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer: systematic review and network meta-analysis.BJS open · 2020Pooled it
- Totally minimally invasive esophagectomy versus hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis.Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus · 2020Pooled it
- Thoracic duct ligation during esophagectomy fails to prevent chylothorax or improve survival: a propensity score matched cohort study.Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society · 2026Article
- Application of modified neck drainage in the management of cervical anastomotic fistula in esophageal cancer patients.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2025Article
- Continuous Epidural Versus Non-Epidural Pain Management After Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: A Real-Life, High-Case-Load Center Experience.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Unveiling Therapeutic Targets for Esophageal Cancer: A Comprehensive Review.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023Review
- Minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy for resectable thoracic esophageal cancer (NST 1502): a multicenter prospective cohort study.Journal of the National Cancer Center · 2023Article
- Clinical characteristics and survival of esophageal cancer patients: annual report of the surgical treatment in Shanghai Chest Hospital, 2016.Journal of thoracic disease · 2022Article
- A Comparative Study between the Postoperative Complications of Stripping Esophagectomy and Classic (Orringer's Technique) Esophagectomy.Surgery journal (New York, N.Y.) · 2022Article
- Minimally invasive total adventitial resection of the cardia for tumours of the oesophagogastric junction.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2021Article
- Totally Robotic Esophagectomy.Journal of chest surgery · 2021Article
- Transition from open to minimally invasive en bloc esophagectomy can be achieved without compromising surgical quality.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Article
- Learning Curve for Lymph Node Dissection Around the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve in McKeown Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- Strategies to prevent anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy and gastric conduit reconstruction.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2020Review
- Conversion to open surgery during minimally invasive esophagectomy portends worse short-term outcomes: an analysis of the National Cancer Database.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Article
- Reliability and safety of minimally invasive esophagectomy after neoadjuvant chemoradiation: a retrospective study.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2019Article
- Learning curve and postoperative outcomes of minimally invasive esophagectomy.Journal of thoracic disease · 2019Review
- Learning curves in minimally invasive esophagectomy.World journal of gastroenterology · 2018Review
- Comparison of short-term outcomes and three yearsurvival between total minimally invasive McKeown and dual-incision esophagectomy.Thoracic cancer · 2017Article
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 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo update our experiences with minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 445 consecutive patients who underwent minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy between January 2009 and July 2015 at the Cancer Hospital of Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and used 103 patients who underwent open McKeown esophagectomy in the same period as controls. Among 375 patients who underwent total minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy, 180 in the early period were chosen for the study of learning curve of total minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy. These 180 minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomies performed by five surgeons were divided into three groups according to time sequence as group 1 (n = 60), group 2 (n = 60) and group 3 (n = 60).
resultsPatients who underwent total minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy had significantly less intraoperative blood loss than patients who underwent hybrid minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy or open McKeown esophagectomy (100 mL vs 300 mL vs 200 mL, P = 0.001). However, there were no significant differences in operation time, number of harvested lymph nodes, or postoperative morbidity including incidence of pulmonary complication and anastomotic leak between total minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy, hybrid minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy and open McKeown esophagectomy groups. There were no significant differences in 5-year survival between these three groups (60.5% vs 47.9% vs 35.6%, P = 0.735). Patients in group 1 had significantly longer duration of operation than those in groups 2 and 3. There were no significant differences in intraoperative blood loss, number of harvested lymph nodes, or postoperative morbidity including incidence of pulmonary complication and anastomotic leak between groups 1, 2 and 3.
conclusionTotal minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy was associated with reduced intraoperative blood loss and comparable short term and long term survival compared with hybrid minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy or open Mckeown esophagectomy. At least 12 cases are needed to master total minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy in a high volume center.
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.