ReviewJournal of thoracic disease2019
Learning curve and postoperative outcomes of minimally invasive esophagectomy.
Review in Journal of thoracic disease, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 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
39 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Stapled vs. hand-sewn anastomosis during esophagectomy: a randomized trials systematic review and meta-analysis.Updates in surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Totally minimally invasive esophagectomy versus hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis.Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus · 2020Pooled it
- Trial
- A Simple Modification to Facilitate the H Anastomosis: Making the Mucosal Insertion Step Reproducible.Annals of thoracic surgery short reports · 2026Article
- Learning curve-associated safety in minimally invasive esophagectomy using a time-based supervisory takeover strategy: a propensity score-weighted analysis of 603 VATS procedures.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Robotic-assisted versus conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy: a retrospective cohort study from a high-volume center.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Standardized Approach to Robotic-Assisted Esophagectomy.Annals of thoracic surgery short reports · 2025Article
- Triphasic Learning Curve of Cytoreductive Surgery with Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy.Annals of surgical oncology · 2024Article
- Article
- Nationwide Association of Surgical Performance of Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy With Patient Outcomes.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Evaluating robotic assistance on the learning curve and efficiency of mandibular angle ostectomy: an animal model study.Frontiers in surgery · 2024Article
- A narrative review of anastomotic leak in the Ivor Lewis esophagectomy: expected, accepted, but preventable.Translational cancer research · 2023Review
- Determining the frequency of burn wound dressing for clinically competent nursing students: establishing standards based on learning curves.BMC medical education · 2023Article
- Experiences in reverse sequence esophagectomy: a promising alternative for esophageal cancer surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- [Robotic esophageal surgery].Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2023Article
- Controversies in the surgical management of esophageal adenocarcinoma.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2023Review
- Impact of Weekend Effect on Short- and Long-Term Survival of Patients Undergoing Esophagectomy for Cancer: A Population-Based, Inverse Probability of Treatment-Weighted Analysis.Annals of surgical oncology · 2023Article
- Why pay more for robot in esophageal cancer surgery?Updates in surgery · 2023Review
- Improved anastomotic leakage rates after the "flap and wrap" reconstruction in Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for cancer.Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus · 2022Observational
- Robot-assisted versus video-assisted thoraco-laparoscopic McKeown's esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis of minimally invasive approaches.Journal of robotic surgery · 2022Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Surgical innovation is necessary to increase surgical effectiveness and to decrease postoperative complications, but can be associated with learning curves. The significance of surgical learning curves is increasing and it is important to take surgical learning curves into account when interpreting outcome data that is acquired during an implementation period. This may especially be the case for a technically challenging procedure like minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE). This review article provides an overview of the published literature that has described a learning curve for MIE, with particular interest in the relationship between the learning curve and postoperative complications. Twenty two studies reported learning curves of different types of MIE. These studies showed that the length of the learning curve of MIE can be significant, but most studies are single center studies of limited methodological quality. In addition, several learning curve analysis methods are used but a clear recommendation regarding the preferred method is lacking. Most studies use intraoperative parameters (e.g., operative time) to define the length of the learning curve. However, significant learning curve effects have been found for clinically more relevant parameters (e.g., anastomotic leak), especially for Ivor Lewis MIE. These studies suggest that patient safety can be substantially compromised during learning curves. To increase patient safety and shorten the learning curve, evidence based and effective safe implementation programs are necessary.
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.