ArticleWorld journal of surgical oncology2017
Comparison of the outcomes between thoracoscopic and laparoscopic esophagectomy via retrosternal and prevertebral lifting paths by the same surgeon.
Article in World journal of surgical oncology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and validation of the Convalescence Symptom Assessment Scale for EsophageCtomy patients.Nursing open · 2024Review
- Comparison of substernal and posterior mediastinal route of reconstruction after minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe objective of the study is to explore the effects of retrosternal and prevertebral lifting paths of the tubular stomach on postoperative complications of patients undergoing cervical anastomosis in thoracoscopic and laparoscopic esophagectomy.
methodsSixty-three patients were retrospectively analyzed. The patients received thoracoscopic and laparoscopic esophagectomy by the same surgeon. According to the path by which the stomach was lifted upward, the patients were divided into two groups: the retrosternal path group (32 patients) and the prevertebral path group (31 patients). Operative indications and complications of postoperative patients in these two groups were observed.
resultsThere was no statistically significant difference in the time duration of surgery, amount of bleeding, number of dissected lymph node, and postoperative hospitalization time between the retrosternal and prevertebral lifting paths (P > 0.05). Furthermore, the two groups did not show significant difference in the incidence rate of postoperative anastomosis fistula complications (P = 0.702). Instead, the amount of postoperative gastric drainage and the incidence rates of the pulmonary infection were significantly lower in the retrosternal path group than in the prevertebral path group, respectively (P = 0.001, P = 0.012, respectively).
conclusionThe esophagogastrostomic cervical anastomoses performed via the retrosternal and prevertebral paths are both feasible methods of digestive tract reconstruction. The amount of postoperative gastric drainage volume and the pulmonary infection incidence rate in the retrosternal path group were lower than those in the prevertebral path group. Therefore, gastroesophageal anastomosis via the retrosternal lifting path may be preferably considered for thoracoscopic and laparoscopic surgery for esophageal carcinoma patients.
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.