ArticleJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2020
Comparisons between minimally invasive and open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer with cervical anastomosis: a retrospective study.
Article in Journal of cardiothoracic surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06147180 (Comparison of Long-term Survival and Quality of Life After Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy Versus Open Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 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.
Comparison of Long-term Survival and Quality of Life After Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy Versus Open Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: a Retrospective Cohort Study
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety and feasibility of jejunostomy on elderly patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2026Article
- Postoperative complications and health-related quality of life after oesophageal cancer surgery: a national, population-based cohort study.Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) · 2024Article
- Association of operative time and approach on postoperative complications for esophagectomy.Surgery · 2024Article
- The association of perioperative blood transfusion with survival outcomes after major cancer surgery: a population-based cohort study in South Korea.Surgery today · 2024Article
- Review
- Is laparoscope surgery feasible for upper gastrointestinal cancer patients with a history of abdominal surgery?Frontiers in surgery · 2023Article
- Clinical significance of Osaka prognostic score based on nutritional and inflammatory status in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.BMC cancer · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAs an extensive surgery, minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has advantages in reducing morbidity and improving quality of life for patients suffering from esophageal cancer. This study aims to investigate differences between MIE and open esophagectomy (OE) for considerations of the safety of procedures, rate of tumor resection, postoperative complications, and quality of life. This paper also tends to provide some references for MIE on esophageal cancer therapy.
methodsA retrospective data analysis was undertaken on 140 patients who either underwent MIE or OE for esophageal cancer with cervical anastomosis from March 2013 to May 2014 by our surgical team. Preoperative characteristics were analyzed for both groups. Differences in perioperative and oncologic outcomes were compared in operation time, intraoperative blood loss, lymph nodes retrieved, and R0-resection rate. Accordingly, a comparative analysis was conducted on complications namely anastomotic leakage, pulmonary infection, in-hospital mortality, and short-term (3 months) postoperative EORTC C30 Global health as well.
resultsA total of 140 patients (87 with MIE and 53 with OE) were enrolled and the two groups were homogeneous in terms of patient- and tumor-related data. There was no difference on postoperative ICU stay (21.15 ± 1.54 h vs 21.75 ± 1.68 h, p = 0.07) and R0-resection rate (100% vs 100%, p = 1.00). The operation time for MIE was significantly shorter (146.08 ± 17.35 min vs 200.34 ± 14.51 min, p < 0.0001), the intraoperative blood loss was remarkably saved (MIE vs OE, 83.91 ± 24.72 ml vs 174.53 ± 35.32 ml, P < 0.0001) and more lymph nodes were retrieved (MIE vs OE, 38.89 ± 4.31 vs 18.42 ± 3.66, P < 0.0001). There was no difference between the groups to postoperative complications and mortality. However, pulmonary infection in MIE was higher than in OE and the difference was not statistically significant (MIE vs OE, 20.75% vs 31.03%, P = 0.24). Complications such as in-hospital mortality and short-term (3 months) postoperative EORTC C30 Global health displayed no difference between both groups as well.
conclusionsThe number of lymph nodes and intraoperative blood loss were significantly ameliorated in MIE. A 4-5 cm longitudinal incision below the xiphoid process was made to create the gastric conduit under direct vision assisting in shortening the total operation time significantly.
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.