ArticleJournal of laparoendoscopic & advanced surgical techniques. Part A2017
Evolution in the Treatment of Esophageal Disease at a Single Academic Institution: 2004-2013.
Article in Journal of laparoendoscopic & advanced surgical techniques. Part A, 2017. 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.
- Recurrence After Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: High-Volume Center Surveillance Imaging Outcomes.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy for Esophageal Carcinoma: A Single-Center 10-Year Experience of Low Versus High-Dose Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Post-esophagectomy hiatal hernia following minimally invasive esophagectomy in esophageal cancer patients.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionManagement of benign and malignant esophageal disease has changed rapidly over the past decade. The aim of this study was to analyze evolution in surgical management of esophageal disease at a single academic medical center during this period. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe reviewed a retrospective cohort of patients who underwent esophagectomy between 2004 and 2013. Patient, institutional, treatment, and outcomes variables were reviewed.
results317 patients were analyzed. Median age was 63.5 years; 80% were male. Average inhospital mortality rate was 3.8%. Operative indications changed significantly from 2004 to 2013, with more operations performed for invasive malignancy (77% vs. 95%) and fewer for high-grade dysplasia (12% vs. 3%, P = .008). In 2004, Ivor Lewis esophagectomy was the most common surgical technique, but the three-field technique was the operation of choice in 2013. A minimally invasive approach was used in 19% of cases in 2004 and 100% of cases in 2013 (P < .001). Anastomotic leak ranged from 0% to 21% with no significant difference over the study period (P = .18). Median lymph node harvest increased from seven to 18 nodes from 2004 to 2013 (P = .001). Hospital length of stay decreased from 15 to 8 days (P = .001). In 2013, 79% of patients were discharged to home, compared to 73% in 2004 (P = .04). DISCUSSION: Over the last decade, our treatment of esophageal disease has evolved from a predominantly open Ivor Lewis to a minimally invasive three-field approach. Operations for malignancy have also increased dramatically. Postoperative complications and mortality were not significantly changed, but were consistently low during the latter years of the study.
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.