ReviewAnnals of gastroenterological surgery2017
Robotic surgery for esophageal cancer: Merits and demerits.
Review in Annals of gastroenterological surgery, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- Is Robotic Surgery the Future for Resectable Esophageal Cancer?: A Systematic Literature Review of Oncological and Clinical Outcomes.Annals of surgical oncology · 2024Pooled it
- Comparison of Clinical Outcomes of Robot-Assisted, Video-Assisted, and Open Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.JAMA network open · 2021Pooled it
- Review
- Robotic vs. laparoscopic Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a weighted short- and long-term outcomes analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Quality and safety of Ireland's first robotic oesophagectomy program.Irish journal of medical science · 2025Article
- Current Status and Future Applications of Robotic Surgery in Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery: A Narrative Review.Cancers · 2025Review
- Short-term outcomes of robot-assisted versus conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy: A propensity score-matched study via a nationwide database.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2025Article
- Transhiatal robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy: unclear benefits compared to traditional transhiatal esophagectomy.Journal of robotic surgery · 2022Article
- Recent developments in cancer research: Expectations for a new remedy.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2021Review
- Robotic-assisted Ivor Lewis esophagectomy, a review of the technique.Updates in surgery · 2021Review
- Long-term health-related quality of life following robot-assisted radical transmediastinal esophagectomy.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Article
- Clinical utility of robot-assisted transthoracic esophagectomy in advanced esophageal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy.Journal of thoracic disease · 2019Article
- The procedure of single-port inflatable mediastinoscopy and laparoscopic surgery for radical esophagectomy.Mediastinum (Hong Kong, China) · 2019Article
- Robotic surgery for esophageal cancer: Merits and demerits.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2017Review
- Oncologic Resection in Laparoscopic Versus Robotic Transhiatal Esophagectomy.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic SurgeonsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Since the introduction of robotic systems in esophageal surgery in 2000, the number of robotic esophagectomies has been gradually increasing worldwide, although robot-assisted surgery is not yet regarded as standard treatment for esophageal cancer, because of its high cost and the paucity of high-level evidence. In 2016, more than 1800 cases were operated with robot assistance. Early results with small series demonstrated feasibility and safety in both robotic transhiatal (THE) and transthoracic esophagectomies (TTE). Some studies report that the learning curve is approximately 20 cases. Following the initial series, operative results of robotic TTE have shown a tendency to improve, and oncological long-term results are reported to be effective and acceptable: R0 resection approaches 95%, and locoregional recurrence is rare. Several recent studies have demonstrated advantages of robotic esophagectomy in lymphadenectomy compared with the thoracoscopic approach. Such technical innovations as three-dimensional view, articulated instruments with seven degrees of movement, tremor filter etc. have the potential to outperform any conventional procedures. With the aim of preventing postoperative pulmonary complications without diminishing lymphadenectomy performance, a nontransthoracic radical esophagectomy procedure combining a video-assisted cervical approach for the upper mediastinum and a robot-assisted transhiatal approach for the middle and lower mediastinum, transmediastinal esophagectomy, was developed; its short-term outcomes are promising. Thus, the merits or demerits of robotic surgery in this field remain quite difficult to assess. However, in the near future, the merits will definitely outweigh the demerits because the esophagus is an ideal organ for a robotic approach.
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.