ArticleThoracic cancer2018
Minimally invasive esophagectomy in the lateral-prone position: Experience of 124 cases in a single center.
Article in Thoracic cancer, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Efficacy and complications of single-port thoracoscopic minimally invasive esophagectomy in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a single-center experience.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Learning Curve for Lymph Node Dissection Around the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve in McKeown Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- Minimally invasive esophagectomy-behind patient-centered learning curves.Journal of thoracic disease · 2019Article
- Learning curve and postoperative outcomes of minimally invasive esophagectomy.Journal of thoracic disease · 2019Review
- [Effects of minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy on circulating tumor cells in patients with esophageal cancer].Nan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University · 2018Article
- Clinical analysis of minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy in a single center by a single medical group.Journal of Zhejiang University. Science. BArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMinimally invasive esophagectomy was first introduced as a new technique for esophageal cancer treatment 20 years ago. Performing this procedure in the lateral-prone position is the most appropriate method. Since May 2013, our center has performed 124 esophageal cancer operations using this procedure. Herein, we share our experience.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed 124 consecutive patients who had received minimally invasive esophagectomy in the lateral-prone position from May 2013 to June 2017. The procedure, operative variables, postoperative complications, and oncology outcomes were assessed.
resultsThe surgery was successful in all 124 patients; three cases converted to an abdominal opening procedure during surgery. The mean total lymph node harvest was 19.2: 12.9 in the thoracic cavity and 6.0 in the abdominal cavity. The average total operation duration was 376 minutes and blood loss was 156 mL. No mortality occurred within 30 postoperative days. Forty-three cases of postoperative morbidity occurred in 38 patients (30.6%), including 11 anastomotic leakages (8.9%), 1 chyle leak (0.8%), 12 lateral recurrent nerve palsies (9.7%), 11 pulmonary complications (8.9%), and 8 other complications (6.5%). A learning curve indicated that blood loss, operation duration, and the number of lymph nodes harvested would improve with time.
conclusionsSurgical and oncological outcomes following minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer were acceptable. There are some advantages to this technique compared to previous reports of opening procedures.
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.