ArticleThoracic cancer2019
Comparison of postoperative complications between different operation methods for esophageal cancer.
Article in Thoracic cancer, 2019. 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and Validation of a New Integrative Score Based on Various Systemic Inflammatory and Nutritional Indicators in Predicting Prognosis in Patients With Resectable Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterTrial
- Comparison of right- and left-approach esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
- Diaphragmatic dysfunction is associated with postoperative pulmonary complications in the aged patients underwent radical resection of esophageal cancer: a prospective observational study.Journal of thoracic disease · 2024Article
- Impact of pulmonary infection after radical esophagectomy on serum inflammatory markers, pulmonary function indices, and prognosis.Saudi medical journal · 2024Article
- Transition from open to minimally invasive en bloc esophagectomy can be achieved without compromising surgical quality.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe explored the selection of surgical method and differences in postoperative complications in patients with esophageal cancer (EC).
methodsThe data of 434 patients with EC who underwent thoracic surgery at the Jiangsu Provincial People's Hospital between January 2011 and December 2016 were collected. Patients were divided into three groups: Sweet surgery (143 cases), Ivor-Lewis surgery (232 cases), and minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE, 59 cases). The number of postoperative days, number of lymph nodes dissected, and incidence of pulmonary infection, serous membrane fluid, arrhythmia, chylous fistula, gastric emptying dysfunction, and anastomotic leakage were recorded.
resultsA statistically significant number of female stage I patients with upper EC underwent MIE (P < 0.05). Postoperative complications were observed in all three groups but were not statistically significant (P > 0.05). A greater number of lymph nodes were dissected in the Ivor-Lewis group compared to the other groups (P < 0.05).
conclusionClinically, MIE is often selectively used for women with upper and mid-early EC, especially in stage I. In our sample, more lymph nodes were dissected in the Ivor-Lewis than in the MIE group, which can reduce recurrence and improve the survival rate. Ivor-Lewis surgery is often used in mid-lower and terminal EC, while MIE is often used in upper and mid-early EC. Compared to the other surgical methods, MIE does not increase the risk of postoperative complications. The gradual maturation of MIE technology will further expand indications and increase the number of lymph nodes dissected.
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.