ArticleJSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
Oncologic Resection in Laparoscopic Versus Robotic Transhiatal Esophagectomy.
Article in JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 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
- Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy versus video-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Translational cancer research · 2021Article
- Patient reported outcomes (PROs) after minimally invasive and open esophagectomy.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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesAs the use of robotic surgery continues to increase, little is known about robotic oncologic outcomes compared with traditional methods in esophagectomy. The aim of this study was to examine the perioperative oncologic outcomes of patients undergoing laparoscopic versus robot-assisted transhiatal esophagectomy (THE).
methodsThirty-six consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic and robot-assisted THE for malignant disease over a 3-year period were identified in a retrospective database. Eighteen patients underwent robotic-assisted THE with cervical anastomosis, and 18 patients underwent laparoscopic THE. All procedures were performed by a single foregut and thoracic surgeon.
resultsPatient demographics were similar between the 2 groups with no significant differences. Lymph node yields for both laparoscopic and robot-assisted THE were similar at 13.9 and 14.3, respectively (
conclusionsLaparoscopic and robot-assisted THEs yield similar perioperative oncologic results including lymph node yield and margin status. In the transition from laparoscopic surgery, robotic surgery should be considered oncologically noninferior compared with laparoscopy.
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.