ArticleWorld journal of surgical oncology2020
Modified reverse-puncture anastomotic technique vs. traditional technique for total minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy.
Article in World journal of surgical oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Long-term survival outcomes of esophageal cancer after minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.World journal of surgical oncology · 2022Review
- Advantages of McKeown minimally invasive oesophagectomy for the treatment of oesophageal cancer: propensity score matching analysis of 169 cases.World journal of surgical oncology · 2022Article
- A safe and effective anastomotic technique for robot-assisted minimally invasive oesophagectomy: Reverse-puncture anastomosis.The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS · 2022Article
- The comparisons of three stapler placement methods for intrathoracic mechanistic circular stapling in Ivor Lewis minimally invasive esophagectomy.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTotal endoscopic Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy is a challenging, complex, and costly operation. These disadvantages restrict its wide application. The aim of this study was to compare the modified reverse-puncture anastomotic technique and traditional technique for total minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy.
methodsIn this cohort retrospective study, all patients with medial and lower squamous cell carcinoma of esophagus from February 2014 and June 2018 were divided into two groups according to the surgical method, which were modified reverse-puncture anastomotic technique group and traditional technique group. The operation time, intraoperative bleeding volume, complications, and cost of the two groups were compared.
resultsForty-eight patients in the modified reverse-puncture anastomotic technique group while 54 patients in the traditional technique group were included. The operation time was 293.4 ± 57.2 min in the modified reverse-puncture anastomotic technique group, which was significantly shorter than that in the traditional technique group (353.4 ± 64.1 min) (P < 0.05). The intraoperative bleeding volume of modified reverse-puncture anastomotic technique group was 157.3 ± 107.4 ml, while it was 191.9 ± 123.6 ml in traditional technique group (P = 0.14). There were similar complications between the two groups. The cost of modified reverse-puncture anastomotic and traditional technique in our hospital were and 72 ± 13 and 83 ± 41 thousand Yuan, respectively (P = 0.08).
conclusionThe good short-term outcomes that were achieved suggested that the use of modified reverse-puncture anastomotic technique is safe and feasible for total endoscopic Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy.
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.