Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32970189›Full record

ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2020

Recurrent laryngeal nerve monitoring during totally robot-assisted Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.

J I Staubitz, P C van der Sluis, F Berlth, F Watzka, F Dette, A Läßig, H Lang, T J Musholt, P P Grimminger

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 30% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Application of intraoperative nerve monitoring for recurrent laryngeal nerves in minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy.Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

J I StaubitzDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University Medical Center Mainz, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Langenbeckstraße 1, 55131, Mainz, Germany.
P C van der SluisDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University Medical Center Mainz, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Langenbeckstraße 1, 55131, Mainz, Germany.
F BerlthDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University Medical Center Mainz, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Langenbeckstraße 1, 55131, Mainz, Germany.
F WatzkaDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University Medical Center Mainz, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Langenbeckstraße 1, 55131, Mainz, Germany.
F DetteDepartment of Anesthesiology, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Langenbeckstraße 1, 55131, Mainz, Germany.
A LäßigCommunication Disorders Division, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, University Medical Center Mainz, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, 55131, Mainz, Germany.
H LangDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University Medical Center Mainz, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Langenbeckstraße 1, 55131, Mainz, Germany.
T J MusholtSection of Endocrine Surgery, Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University Medical Center Mainz, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Langenbeckstraße 1, 55131, Mainz, Germany.
P P GrimmingerDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University Medical Center Mainz, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Langenbeckstraße 1, 55131, Mainz, Germany. peter.grimminger@unimedizin-mainz.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1859-9213
Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe robot-assisted approach for Ivor Lewis esophagectomy offers an enlarged, three-dimensional overview of the intraoperative situs. The vagal nerve (VN) can easily be detected, preserved, and intentionally resected below the separation point of the recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN). However, postoperative vocal cord paresis can result from vagal or RLN injury during radical lymph node dissection, presenting a challenge to the operating surgeon.

methodsFrom May to August 2019, 10 cases of robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) with extended 2-field lymphadenectomy, performed at the University Medical Center Mainz, were included in a prospective cohort study. Bilateral intermittent intraoperative nerve monitoring (IONM) of the RLN and VN was performed, including pre- and postoperative laryngoscopy assessment.

resultsReliable mean signals of the right VN (2.57 mV/4.50 ms) and the RLN (left 1.24 mV/3.71 ms, right 0.85 mV/3.56 ms) were obtained. IONM facilitated the identification of the exact height of separation of the right RLN from the VN. There were no cases of permanent postoperative vocal paresis. Median lymph node count from the paratracheal stations was 5 lymph nodes.

conclusionIONM was feasible during RAMIE. The intraoperative identification of the RLN location contributed to the accuracy of lymph node dissection of the paratracheal lymph node stations. RLN damage and subsequent postoperative vocal cord paresis can potentially be prevented by IONM.

Indexed as

Esophageal NeoplasmsRoboticsEsophagectomyHumansMonitoring, IntraoperativeProspective StudiesRecurrent Laryngeal NerveEsophageal cancerIntraoperative nerve monitoringLarynxRobot-assisted surgery

Identifiers

PMID32970189
PMCPMC7686004
OpenAlexW3088356883

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.