ArticleThoracic cancer2018
Impact of unplanned events on early postoperative results of minimally invasive esophagectomy.
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 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Prediction model using risk factors associated with anastomotic leakage after minimally invasive esophagectomy.Pakistan journal of medical sciencesArticle
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
backgroundMinimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is increasingly performed worldwide. Unplanned events during thoracoscopy or laparoscopy can jeopardize the procedure, sometimes necessitating conversion to open surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of unplanned events on early postoperative outcomes after MIE.
methodA consecutive group of 303 patients who underwent MIE between January 2011 and December 2015 were reviewed. The patients were allocated to two groups comprising those with (G-UPE, 85 patients) and without unplanned events (G-Regular, 218 patients). Unplanned events, defined as events that clearly changed or prolonged the procedure included intraoperative bleeding, chest and/or peritoneal adhesions, tumor invasion (sT4a + T4b), non-radical resection (R2 resection), and conversion for any reason. Differences in postoperative complications between the groups were analyzed.
resultsThe most common unplanned events were pleural and/or peritoneal adhesions (28/89, 31.5%), followed by intraoperative discovery of tumor invasion (sT4a + T4b, 25/89, 28.1%). There were significant differences in the incidence of respiratory (57.6% vs. 8.3%) and nervous system complications (10.6% vs. 2.7%), postoperative infection (32.9% vs. 5.0%), and chylothorax (8.2% vs. 0.9%) between the G-UPE and G-Regular groups, respectively (P < 0.05). The most common reasons for conversion to open procedures were pleural and/or peritoneal adhesions (9/38, 23.8%) and intraoperative bleeding (7/38, 18.4%). The main reasons for R2 resection were tumor invasion of the trachea or bronchus (7/21, 33.2%) and of the aorta (5/21, 23.8%).
conclusionUnplanned events during MIE increase the incidence of postoperative complications. Improved clinical staging and more careful surgery minimize unplanned events.
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.