SynthesisThoracic cancer2020
Postoperative short-term outcomes of minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy for patients with esophageal cancer: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Thoracic cancer, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Short-term outcomes of robot-assisted versus conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 18,187 patients.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Novel Mediastinoscope-Assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Annals of surgical oncology · 2023Pooled it
- Minimally invasive or open esophagectomy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a comprehensive systematic review of surgical and survival outcomes.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Review
- Nomographic predictive models for complications after minimally invasive esophagectomy: Current status and future perspectives.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Review
- Article
- Association of operative time and approach on postoperative complications for esophagectomy.Surgery · 2024Article
- Quality of Life in Patients Undergoing Surgery for Upper GI Malignancies.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy for resectable thoracic esophageal cancer (NST 1502): a multicenter prospective cohort study.Journal of the National Cancer Center · 2023Article
- Uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery esophagectomy outcomes in 40 consecutive patients.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2023Article
- Training curriculum in minimally invasive emergency digestive surgery: 2022 WSES position paper.World journal of emergency surgery : WJES · 2023Review
- Application of Amiodarone and Cedilan in the Treatment of Patients with Arrhythmia after Esophageal and Lung Cancer.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2023Article
- Comparison of complications and long-term survival after minimally invasive esophagectomy versus open esophagectomy in patients with esophageal cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- TRIP13 Induces Nedaplatin Resistance in Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma by Enhancing Repair of DNA Damage and Inhibiting Apoptosis.BioMed research international · 2022Article
- Uniportal VATS Approach in Esophageal Cancer - How to Do It Update.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- Side-to-side esophagogastric anastomosis for minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy: operative technique and short-term outcomes.Updates in surgery · 2021Article
- Usefulness of prone-position computed tomography as preoperative simulation prior to thoracoscopic esophagectomy for thoracic esophageal cancer.Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society · 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
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesize the available evidence regarding short-term outcomes between minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and open esophagectomy (OE).
methodsStudies were identified by searching databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library up to March 2019 without language restrictions. Results of these searches were filtered according to a set of eligibility criteria and analyzed in line with PRISMA guidelines.
resultsThere were 33 studies included with a total of 13 269 patients in our review, out of which 4948 cases were of MIE and 8321 cases were of OE. The pooled results suggested that MIE had a better outcome regarding all-cause respiratory complications (RCs) (OR = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.41-0.78, P = <0.001), in-hospital duration (SMD = -0.51; 95% CI = -0.78-0.24; P = <0.001), and blood loss (SMD = -1.44; 95% CI = -1.95-0.93; P = <0.001). OE was associated with shorter duration of operation time, while no statistically significant differences were observed regarding other outcomes. Additionally, subgroup analyses were performed for a number of different postoperative events.
conclusionsOur study indicated that MIE had more favorable outcomes than OE from the perspective of short-term outcomes. Further large-scale, multicenter randomized control trials are needed to explore the long-term survival outcomes after MIE versus OE.
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.