ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2016
Perioperative outcomes of esophageal cancer surgery in a mid-volume institution in the era of centralization.
Article in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Continuously sutured versus linear-stapled anastomosis in robot-assisted hybrid Ivor Lewis esophageal surgery following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: a single-center cohort study.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- From open Ivor Lewis esophagectomy to a hybrid robotic-assisted thoracoscopic approach: a single-center experience over two decades.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2022Article
- Regionalization of esophagectomy: where are we now?Journal of thoracic disease · 2019Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCentralization of esophageal cancer surgery to high-volume institutions has been shown to improve perioperative outcomes in several studies. However, there is an ongoing debate, whether defined minimal annual hospital volumes for esophagectomies are required for quality assurance. The aim of the study was to assess perioperative outcomes of esophagectomies in a single institution in Switzerland.
methodsData from a database of esophagectomies performed between 2004 and 2013 was analyzed. Perioperative morbidity of esophagectomies due to cancer was assessed according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. Postoperative mortality was defined as death from any cause within the same hospital stay.
resultsA total of 143 operations (125 transthoracic esophagectomies, 18 extended transhiatal gastrectomies) were performed in the surveyed 10-year period. Two surgeons performed 91 % of all procedures. Postoperative morbidity was 43.4 %. Complications with a Clavien-Dindo score of III/IV (requiring surgical, endoscopic, or radiological intervention) occurred in 19 cases (13.4 %). The overall anastomotic leak rate was 3.5 %. Pulmonary complications were the most frequent postoperative problems involving 21 % of patients. In-hospital mortality was 0.7 %. Mean length of hospital stay was 17 days in patients with no complications and 22 days if there were any complications (p < 0.001).
conclusionEsophageal cancer surgery is complex and has a significant risk of morbidity. The most common postoperative problems are pulmonary complications, usually responding well to non-invasive treatment. Appropriate patient selection and preparation, high surgeon volume, and a comprehensive multidisciplinary care pathway can provide a low perioperative mortality rate in a mid-volume institution.
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.