ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2020
Propensity score-matched comparison between open and minimal invasive hybrid esophagectomy for esophageal adenocarcinoma.
Article in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Survival comparison between open and thoracoscopic esophagectomy for node-negative esophageal squamous cell cancer: an ambispective cohort study.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Clinical utility and applicability of the,Esophagus Complication Consensus Group' (ECCG) classification of anastomotic leakage following hybrid Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2023Article
- Essential updates 2020/2021: Recent topics in surgery and perioperative therapy for esophageal cancer.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2023Review
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 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study compared the outcome between patients who had an open and those who had a hybrid esophagectomy for T1 or T3 esophageal adenocarcinoma (eAC). No clear data are available concerning this question based on T-category.
methodsTwo groups of patients with esophagectomy and high intrathoracic esophagogastrostomy for eAC were analyzed: hybrid (laparoscopy + right thoracotomy) (n = 835) and open (laparotomy + right thoracotomy) (n = 188). Outcome criteria were 30- and 90-day mortality, R0-resection rate (R0), number of resected lymph nodes (rLNs), and 5-year survival rate (5y-SR). For each type of surgery, three patient groups were analyzed: pT1-carcinoma (group-1), cT3Nx and neoadjuvant chemoradiation (group-2), and pT3N0-3 without neoadjuvant therapy (group-3). The comparison was based on a propensity score matching in relation of 1:2 for open versus hybrid.
resultsIn group-1 (38 open vs 76 hybrid) R0-resection (100%), 30-day mortality (0%), 90-day mortality (2.6% vs 0%), and rLNs (median 29.5 vs 28.5) were not significantly different. The pN0-rate was 76% in the open and 92% in the hybrid group (p = 0.036). Accordingly, the 5y-SR was 69% and 87% (p = 0.016), but the prognosis of the subgroups pT1pN0 or pT1pN+ was not significantly different between open or hybrid. In group-2 (68 open vs 135 hybrid) R0-resection (97%), 30-day (0% vs 0.7%) and 90-day (4%) mortality, rLNs (28.5 vs 26), and 5y-SR (36% vs 41%) were not significantly different. In group-3 (37 open vs 75 hybrid) R0, postoperative mortality, rLNs, and 5y-SR were not significantly different.
conclusionIn a propensity score-matched comparison of patients with an open or hybrid esophagectomy for esophageal adenocarcinoma the quality of oncologic resection, postoperative mortality and prognosis are not different.
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.