ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2018
Comparison of perioperative and oncological outcome of thoracoscopic esophagectomy in left decubitus position and in prone position for esophageal cancer.
Article in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery of Great Britain and Ireland (AUGIS)/Perioperative Quality Initiative (POQI) consensus statement on intraoperative and postoperative interventions to reduce pulmonary complications after oesophagectomy.The British journal of surgery · 2022Article
- Effect of the postural transition in minimally invasive esophagectomy: a propensity score matching analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Changes in respiratory mechanics of artificial pneumothorax two-lung ventilation in video-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy in prone position.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Precautions for avoiding pulmonary morbidity after esophagectomy.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2020Review
- Management of anastomotic leaks after esophagectomy and gastric pull-up.Journal of thoracic disease · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to clarify the differences between thoracoscopic esophagectomy in the left decubitus position (LP) and in the prone position (PP) in terms of short-term perioperative outcomes and long-term oncological outcomes after more than 5 years of follow-up.
methodsPatients with esophageal cancer who underwent thoracoscopic esophagectomy and were followed up for more than 5 years were analyzed retrospectively. Of 142 patients, 72 underwent LP esophagectomy and 70 underwent PP esophagectomy. Operation time, blood loss, operative morbidity, mortality, length of hospital stay, and the number of dissected lymph nodes were compared to evaluate short-term outcomes. Cancer recurrence and overall survival were compared to examine long-term outcomes.
resultsPatient and tumor characteristics were not different between the LP and PP groups except for the rate of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Blood loss was significantly lower in the PP group than in the LP group. Incidence of Clavien-Dindo (C.D.) grade ≥ III complications was significantly lower in the PP group than in the LP group. Pulmonary complications were also significantly lower in the PP group than in the LP group. Operation type (LP versus PP) was identified as an independent risk factor for pulmonary complications (odds ratio 0.27, p = 0.03) by multivariate analysis. Cancer recurrence rate, initial recurrence site, and overall survival rate were not different between the two groups.
conclusionsPP is regarded as a less invasive procedure than LP with the same oncological effect.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29656329What 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.