SynthesisDiseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus2020
Totally minimally invasive esophagectomy versus hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 44 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evolution and refinements in minimally invasive esophagectomy: a narrative review.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Review
- Textbook outcome can be reached in the learning curve for hybrid robot-assisted esophagectomy-experience from a German high-volume center.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Epidurals in esophagectomy: end of an era?Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Comment on: "Enhanced short-term outcomes after full robotic-assisted minimally invasive Ivor Lewis procedure compared to the hybrid approach".Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Postoperative outcomes after minimally invasive esophagectomy: an international cohort study from the Oesophagogastric Anastomosis Audit (OGAA).BMC surgery · 2025Article
- Enhanced short-term outcomes after full robotic-assisted minimally invasive Ivor Lewis procedure compared to the hybrid approach.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Clinical implementation of minimally invasive esophagectomy.BMC surgery · 2024Article
- Safe Transition from Open to Total Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Cancer Utilizing Process Management Methodology.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Long-Term Outcomes of Colon Conduits in Surgery for Primary Esophageal Cancer: A Propensity Score-Matched Comparison to Gastric Conduits.Journal of chest surgery · 2024Article
- No difference in the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications between abdominal laparoscopy and laparotomy for minimally invasive thoracoscopic esophagectomy: a retrospective cohort study using a nationwide Japanese database.Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society · 2024Article
- Essential updates 2020/2021: Recent topics in surgery and perioperative therapy for esophageal cancer.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2023Review
- Hybrid Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy vs. Open Esophagectomy: A Retrospective Propensity Score Matched Comparison.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
- Effect of the Age-Adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index on the Survival of Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Patients after Radical Esophagectomy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) vs. hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy: propensity score matched short-term outcome analysis of a European high-volume center.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Risk Factors and Effect of Intrathoracic Anastomotic Leakage after Esophagectomy for Underlying Malignancy-A Ten-Year Analysis at a Tertiary University Centre.Clinics and practice · 2022Article
- Completely minimally invasive versus hybrid Ivor-Lewis oesophagectomy for oesophageal and gastro-oesophageal junctional cancer: a UK multi-centre comparative study.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Outcomes after totally minimally invasive versus hybrid and open Ivor Lewis oesophagectomy: results from the International Esodata Study Group.The British journal of surgery · 2022Article
- Surgical Therapy of Esophageal Adenocarcinoma-Current Standards and Future Perspectives.Cancers · 2021Review
- [Evidence in minimally invasive oncological surgery of the esophagus].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2021Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Minimally invasive esophagectomy is increasingly performed for the treatment of esophageal cancer, but it is unclear whether hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (HMIE) or totally minimally invasive esophagectomy (TMIE) should be preferred. The objective of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of studies comparing HMIE with TMIE. A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Articles comparing HMIE and TMIE were included. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used for critical appraisal of methodological quality. The primary outcome was pneumonia. Sensitivity analysis was performed by analyzing outcome for open chest hybrid MIE versus total TMIE and open abdomen MIE versus TMIE separately. Therefore, subgroup analysis was performed for laparoscopy-assisted HMIE versus TMIE, thoracoscopy-assisted HMIE versus TMIE, Ivor Lewis HMIE versus Ivor Lewis TMIE, and McKeown HMIE versus McKeown TMIE. There were no randomized controlled trials. Twenty-nine studies with a total of 3732 patients were included. Studies had a low to moderate risk of bias. In the main analysis, the pooled incidence of pneumonia was 19.0% after HMIE and 9.8% after TMIE which was not significantly different between the groups (RR: 1.46, 95% CI: 0.97-2.20). TMIE was associated with a lower incidence of wound infections (RR: 1.81, 95% CI: 1.13-2.90) and less blood loss (SMD: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.34-1.22) but with longer operative time (SMD:-0.33, 95% CI: -0.59--0.08). In subgroup analysis, laparoscopy-assisted HMIE was associated with a higher lymph node count than TMIE, and Ivor Lewis HMIE was associated with a lower anastomotic leakage rate than Ivor Lewis TMIE. In general, TMIE was associated with moderately lower morbidity compared to HMIE, but randomized controlled evidence is lacking. The higher leakage rate and lower lymph node count that was found after TMIE in sensitivity analysis indicate that TMIE can also have disadvantages. The findings of this meta-analysis should be considered carefully by surgeons when moving from HMIE to TMIE.
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.