ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2015
A comparison of short-term outcomes between Ivor-Lewis and McKeown minimally invasive esophagectomy.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparison of the clinical outcomes after esophagectomy between intrathoracic anastomosis and cervical anastomosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC surgery · 2022Pooled it
- Ivor Lewis minimally invasive oesophagectomy versus McKeown approach: short-term benefits and mid-term equivalence in a randomized trial for oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Trial
- A Novel Intra-Operative Irrigation-Drainage System for Robot-Assisted Thoracoscopic Esophagogastric Layered Anastomosis: Preliminary Practice and Short-Term Clinical Outcomes.Thoracic cancer · 2026Article
- Comparison of Outcomes After McKeown and Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy for Lower Third Esophageal Cancer.Indian journal of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- The relationship between the collagen score at the anastomotic site of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and anastomotic leakage.Journal of thoracic disease · 2024Article
- Prognostic Value of Combination of Lymphocyte-to-Monocyte-Ratio and CYFRA 21-1 in Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma.World journal of surgery · 2023Article
- McKeown Versus Ivor-Lewis Esophagectomy for Patients with a History of Total Pharyngolaryngectomy: A Comparison Study.World journal of surgery · 2023Article
- Anastomotic Leaks following Esophagectomy for Esophageal and Gastroesophageal Junction Cancer: The Key Is the Multidisciplinary Management.GE Portuguese journal of gastroenterology · 2023Article
- 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
- Development of nomograms predictive of anastomotic leakage in patients before minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- Short-term outcomes of Ivor Lewis vs. McKeown esophagectomy: A meta-analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Review
- Multicenter Experience in Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy - a Comparison of Hybrid and Totally Robot-Assisted Techniques.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2021Article
- Risk Factors of Cervical Anastomotic Leakage after McKeown Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: Focus on Preoperative and Intraoperative Lung Function.Annals of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery : official journal of the Association of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeons of Asia · 2021Article
- The assessment of intraoperative technique-related risk factors and the treatment of anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy: a narrative review.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2021Review
- Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: Meticulous surgery minimizing postoperative complications.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2020Review
- Prevention of intra-thoracic recurrent laryngeal nerve injury with robot-assisted esophagectomy.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2020Article
- McKeown or Ivor Lewis minimally invasive esophagectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Translational cancer research · 2020Article
- Article
- Modified McKeown procedure with uniportal thoracoscope for upper or middle esophageal cancer: initial experience and preliminary results.Journal of thoracic disease · 2019Article
- Evaluation of preoperative risk factors and postoperative indicators for anastomotic leak of minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy: a single-center retrospective analysis.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOnly few comparative studies have been reported on the outcomes of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) with intrathoracic anastomosis (MIE Ivor-Lewis) and MIE with cervical anastomosis (MIE McKeown) for patients with mid and lower esophageal cancer. The objective of this study is to compare the safety, feasibility, and short-term outcomes between two groups.
methodsClinical and surgical data of patients with esophageal cancer who underwent either MIE Ivor-Lewis or MIE McKeown between January 2013 and October 2014 were retrospectively analyzed. Demographic characteristics, pathological data, operative procedures, and perioperative outcomes and survival in patients were compared between both groups.
resultsOf the 72 patients included in this retrospective analysis, 32 underwent MIE Ivor-Lewis and 40 underwent MIE McKeown. Demographics, pathologic data, inpatient mortality, and surgical morbidity in both cohorts were almost identical. A significant difference was observed in Pulmonary complication (18.8% vs. 42.5%, P=0.032), Anastomotic leakage (9.4% vs. 30%, P=0.032), Anastomotic stenosis (12.5% vs. 35%, P=0.028), recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) injury (6.3% vs. 22.5%, P=0.034) between MIE Ivor-Lewis and MIE McKeown groups; however, no difference in operative time (312.6±82.0 vs. 339.4±80.0, P=0.249), blood loss (246.3±82.4 vs. 272.9±136.3, P=0.443), lymph nodes harvested (19.3±8.1 vs. 20.2±7.2, P=0.655) and 90-day mortality (3.1% vs. 5%, P=0.692) was observed between two groups.
conclusionsThe procedure of MIE Ivor-Lewis for esophageal cancer possesses advantages in perioperative outcomes and less complications compared with MIE McKeown.
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.