ReviewViszeralmedizin2015
Minimally Invasive Techniques and Hybrid Operations for Esophageal Cancer.
Review in Viszeralmedizin, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Operative Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy versus Open Esophagectomy for Resectable Esophageal Cancer.South Asian journal of cancer · 2021Article
- Minimal Invasive Esophagectomy-a New Dawn of EsophagealSurgery.Indian journal of surgical oncology · 2020Review
- Propensity-Matched Analysis Comparing Survival After Hybrid Thoracoscopic-Laparotomy Esophagectomy and Complete Thoracoscopic-Laparoscopic Esophagectomy.World journal of surgery · 2019Article
- Clinical outcomes of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis.Journal of thoracic disease · 2017Article
- [Oncologic esophageal resection and reconstruction : Open, hybrid, minimally invasive or robotic?]Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMinimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is slowly gaining acceptance due to advantages in short-term outcome. While evidence is slowly increasing, the discussion about MIE is still controversial.
methodsA literature review was performed to compare MIE with open esophagectomy (OE). Current studies are summarized in view of short- and long-term outcome as well as oncological accuracy.
resultsThe majority of studies show that MIE is associated with a significant reduction of pulmonary complications, blood loss, and shorter length of stay on the intensive care unit. Pulmonary complications are reduced by 14-65%. MIE shows an improved quality of life 6 weeks after surgery. There is some evidence that the endoscopic reintervention rate may be higher after MIE than after OE. Mortality rates do not differ. Regarding oncological results, the rate of R0 resections is comparable between MIE and OE, as is the number of retrieved lymph nodes. Long-term survival seems to be comparable. A few single center trials suggest oncological advantages of MIE over OE concerning the number of lymph nodes, R0 resection rate, and 1-year survival.
conclusionCurrent evidence supports that MIE has advantages over OE in the short-term outcome. Oncological results are comparable to those achieved by OE. As a result, MIE has already been included in current guidelines for the treatment of esophageal cancer.
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.