ArticleSurgical endoscopy2021
Does staged surgical training for minimally invasive esophagectomy have an impact on short-term outcomes?
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Education and training of surgical residents in upper gastrointestinal surgery: a European survey.Updates in surgery · 2026Article
- Additional esophagectomy after non-curative endoscopic treatment of superficial esophageal cancer can achieve better local control than additional chemoradiation therapy: a propensity score-matched analysis in a single center.Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundsophageal cancer has a low incidence, and the anatomy is difficult to understand during esophagectomy. This necessitates a precise and lengthy operation. Therefore, the establishment of a training system in esophageal surgery is of critical importance. In this study, we compared the short-term outcomes of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) performed by consultants versus trainees and explored the factors that impacted the thoracic operation time for each group.
methodsWe have introduced standardized MIE surgical techniques to our trainees in 2016. Our procedure consists of a laparoscopic phase and a thoracoscopic phase and is systematically designed to be learned in a step-by-step manner in each phase. We retrospectively identified 308 patients who underwent MIE from April 2016 to April 2018. The patients were divided into those who underwent MIE by consultants and those who underwent MIE by trainees. The preoperative background factors, operation-related factors, and postoperative complications were compared between the two groups. We also assessed the association between a prolonged thoracic operation time and tumor-and patient-related factors in each of the consults and trainees.
resultsSignificantly more patients had stage ≥ III cancer in the consultant than trainee group. However, the postoperative complications were comparable, specifically pneumonia (11% vs. 18%), anastomotic leakage (11% vs. 13%), and mortality (0.6% vs. 1.3%). There was no significant difference in the lymph node yield (20 vs. 17) or R0 resection rate (94% vs. 91%) between the two groups. However, the trainees had a significantly longer thoracic operation time (143 ± 34 vs. 190 ± 28 min) and significantly greater blood loss (93 vs. 183 ml). Oncological factors were correlated with a prolonged thoracic operation time in the consultants, but not in the trainees.
conclusionsUnder standardized surgical management using a stepwise educational program, performance of MIE by trainees has no impact on short-term outcomes.
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.