ArticleSurgical endoscopy2020
Minimally Invasive Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy (MILE): technique and outcomes of 100 consecutive cases.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Robotic vs. laparoscopic Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a weighted short- and long-term outcomes analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Association of perioperative patient characteristics, intraoperative fluid management, and vasopressors with anastomotic leakage after Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy-a single center retrospective cohort.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Learning curve of Robotic Assisted Minimally Invasive Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy (RAMIE): initial experience.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Risk factors associated with failure to rescue after minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Clinical outcomes of the robot-assisted Ivor Lewis procedure for adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction with semi-instrument overlap intrathoracic anastomosis.Journal of thoracic disease · 2024Article
- Does Fixation of the Gastric Conduit Reduce the Incidence of Gastric Volvulus After Esophagectomy?Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2023Article
- Consequences of anastomotic leaks after minimally invasive esophagectomy: A single-center experience.Surgery open science · 2023Article
- Long-term survival outcomes of esophageal cancer after minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.World journal of surgical oncology · 2022Review
- Indocyanine green perfusion assessment of the gastric conduit in minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Improved Quality of Care and Efficiency Do Not Always Mean Cost Recovery After Minimally Invasive Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2021Article
- Reoperative Surgery After Minimally Invasive Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy.Surgical laparoscopy, endoscopy & percutaneous techniques · 2021Article
- Benefit of radiofrequency ablation after widespread endoscopic resection of neoplastic Barrett's esophagus in daily practice.Annals of gastroenterologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEsophagectomy is the mainstay of therapy for esophageal cancer but is a complex operation that is associated with significantly high morbidity and mortality rates. The primary aim of this study is to report our perioperative outcomes, and long-term survival of Minimally Invasive Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy (MILE).
methodsIRB approved retrospective study of 100 consecutive patients who underwent elective MILE from September 2013 to November 2017 at University of Florida, Jacksonville.
resultsPrimary diagnosis was esophageal cancer (n = 96) and benign esophageal disease (n = 4). Anastomotic leak rate was observed in 6%; 30- and 90-day mortality rates were 2% and 3%, respectively. The mean length of hospital stay was 10.3 days; 87 patients were discharged to home, while 12 patients were discharged to rehabilitation facility, and there was one in-hospital mortality secondary to graft necrosis. At a mean follow-up was 37 months (2-74), the 3- and 5-year overall survivals are 63.9 ± 5.0% (95% CI 53.3-72.7%) and 60.5 ± 5.3% (95% CI 49.4-69.9%), respectively. The 3- and 5-year disease-free survival is 75.0 ± 4.8% (95% CI 64.2-83.0%) and 70.4 ± 5.5% (95% CI 58.0-80.0%).
conclusionMILE can be performed with low perioperative mortality, and favorable long-term overall and disease-free survival.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32253561What 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.